DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
An IDS has not been filed.
Priority
Applicant does not claim benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). The instant filing date of 4/6/2022 will be used for the purpose of search and consideration.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a system comprising a processor, so a machine.
Claims 11-20 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Identification of an Abstract Idea
The claim(s) recite(s)
1. set first criteria for vital information, questionnaire response information, vaccination information and illness test information, the criteria relating to a first illness.
This step reads on a mental process of determining or choosing a criteria such as a threshold value, which can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
2. determine based on the first criteria and first received data whether the user has an illness risk.
This step reads on comparing information which can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
3. determining that the user has an illness risk.
This step reads on an information analysis step which can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are drawn to characterizing the information analyzed and further mental analysis steps that can be performed by the human mind, and are therefore also part of the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Consideration of Practical Application
The claims result in a step of sending a notification to of illness to a user. This is an extra solution activity of outputting information, as described in MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea. The recited additional elements are drawn to:
1. receive first data relating to an illness risk for a first user, comprising vital information, questionnaire response information, vaccination information and illness test information.
2. send to the first user an illness risk notification in response to determining that the user has an illness.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving data information and sending a notification are extra solution activities of inputting and outputting information in response to an analysis by an abstract idea. See extra solution activity described in MPEP 2106.05(g). It is routine, conventional and well understood to input information needed for an analysis and then output or send results of an analysis.
Other elements of the method include a memory and processor which is a recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bosworth (US 2011/0153347)
Bosworth teach a coaching engine executable by a processor for processing lab tests for a user (Abstract) which can be used for monitoring and tracking aspects of personal health including through web services (par. 0005).
Bosworth teach assessing personal information to evaluate health (par. 0006) including test results (par. 0008 and 0049)(i.e. receive illness test result information), and health information including vital signs such as temperature, heart rate and pulse (par. 0022 and 0049)(i.e. vital information), vaccinations (i.e. vaccination information) and life style information such as nutrition information, alcohol consumption, smoking habits (par. 0022 and 0049) which can be obtained through a questionnaire (par.0037)(i.e. questionnaire information)(i.e. receive first data relating to an illness risk of a first user, the first data comprising vital information, questionnaire information, vaccination information, and illness test result information), as in claims 1 and 11.
Bosworth teach protocol rules (i.e. set first criteria) applied to the user information (par. 0037, 0044) and a rule that may apply to user attribute to determine in the user attribute can contribute to health risk (par. 0045) for example if a user smokes (i.e. questionnaire criteria) or has high blood pressure (i.e. vital and illness test result information criteria) and alert can be sent to the user (par. 0045)(i.e. set first criteria for
vital information, questionnaire information, and illness test result information), as in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13.
Bosworth teach collecting vaccine information but do not specifically teach setting a criteria for vaccination information, as in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13. However, Bosworth teach that vaccination data is part of the received health data (par. 0037) as part of the coaching protocol and that protocol rules are executed with respect to the user health data according to the coaching protocol or in response to an even such as receipt of new user data (par. 0038), as in claims 1, 3, 11 and 13.
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill to determine or set a first criteria to apply to vaccination information taught by Bosworth et al. using protocol rules taught by Bosworth. Bosworth teach that protocol rules can be developed as new information about the user is received which would allow for new vaccination information to be integrated into the analysis for notification of risk of illness. The teachings of Bosworth et al. are therefore a combination of known elements that would achieve a predictable result of developing a criteria for received vaccination information to combine into an analysis and subsequent notification to a user.
Bosworth teach that protocol rules on user health data may be executed to identify potential health risks for the user (par. 0044) and can generate a report or notification for the user (par. 0044)(i.e. determine based on the first criterial and first data whether the user has an illness risk and in response, send the user an illness risk notification), as in claims 1 and 11.
Bosworth teach providing the user with information, recommendations and alerts after processing the test results and health information (par. 0019)(i.e. in response to determining an illness risk, send to the first user an illness risk notification), as in claims 1 and 11.
Bosworth teach that the coaching system can be used by the user as well as attending physician, other health care profession or medical facility (par. 0046)(i.e. set a group of users to which the first criteria are applied), as in claims 4 and 14.
Bosworth teaches processing health user data against protocol rules (i.e. comparing to criteria) to inform the user of chances of a disease (par. 0044), as in claims 5 and 15.
Bosworth teaches considering lab results to determine a particular health risk and determine a health risk (par. 0044) which suggests that a second criteria related to a second illness different from a first illness is set and applied, as in claims 6 and 16.
Bosworth teaches vital signs of temperature (i.e. body temperature)(par. 0022), as in claims 7 and 17.
Bosworth teaches health data information including heart rate, pulse, respiratory rate, blood pressure (par. 0022) or high BMI (par. 0032) which reads on symptoms of an illness because these physiological signs change when an individual has an illness, as in claims 8 and 18.
Bosworth teach health data for a user including received vaccinations (par. 0022) which reads on information relating to administration of one or more doses of a vaccine for an illness, as in claim 9 and 19.
Bosworth teach processing lab tests of a user (Abstract, 0009 and 0049) wherein the lab tests assess health factors and conditions (par. 0018 and 0032) including hemoglobin, HDL and LDL or BMI for determine obesity (par. 0032)(i.e. information relating to administration of one or more tests of the first illness of the user), as in claims 10 and 20.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bosworth (US 2011/0153347) as applied to claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 above and further in view of Dickens et al. (Journal of Travel Medicine, vol. 28 (2021) pgs. 1-10).
Bosworth teaches a process for receiving user lab test and health data and based on predetermined protocols providing coaching, health risk notification and goals for a user.
Bosworth does not teach providing notification of need to quarantine and time and duration of quarantine, as in claims 2 and 12.
Dickens et al. teach determining quarantine length during the COVID-19 pandemic (Title, Abstract). Dickens et al. teach testing an individual and determining from a range of quarantine days of 0 to 21, in response to the type of test and test result (page 2, col. 2, par. 3-4). Dickens et al. teach 14-21 day quarantine may deter travel and that shorter quarantine when coupled with testing is no less safe, (page 6, col. 102) which suggests that test results will influence time and duration for quarantine; Dickens et al. also teach that those arriving from high risk countries may have a quarantine of at least 14 days while those from low risk require shorter periods of 3 days or less, which suggests that personal traveler information will also effect quarantine time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the coaching and notification system of Bosworth which evaluates lab test and health data to provide risk of having an illness along with coaching notifications with the teaching of Dickens et al. that evaluates traveler information such as time of infection, test results and country of travel origin to determine quarantine time and duration. Dickens et al. provide motivation by teaching that even among the lowest risk countries, a minimal level of COVID-19 screening is prudent (page 8, col. 2, par. 2). It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill to modify the coaching system of Bosworth to screen individuals and evaluate COVID test results, vaccination status, country of origin, and well known traveler infection metrics such as temperature to determine a need for quarantine and suggested length of quarantine. Such is a combination of known elements that would achieve predictable result.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna Skibinsky whose telephone number is (571) 272-4373. The examiner can normally be reached on 12 pm - 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ram Shukla can be reached on (571) 272-7035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635
Prosecution Insights