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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 1/5/26. Claims 1, 7, and 14 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20-30 are pending.
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 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 21-23, and 30 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 7-9, 12, and 24-26 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a machine), and claims 14, 16, 17, 20, and 27-29 are directed to a device (i.e., machine). Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20-30 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method for customized activity level recommendations, the method comprising:
receiving a first electronic signal from an interface comprising a processor, wherein the first electronic signal is indicative of at least one body health indicator associated with a user;
determining, via the processor, based at least on the body health indicator, a fat mass metric of the user and a weight/body fatness target of the user;
determining, via the processor, based at least on the fat mass metric of the user and the weight/body fatness target of the user, a recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day;
determining, via the processor, based on at least the recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day and using a recommendation algorithm comprising a regression model further comprising a set of rules, a custom physical activity threshold for the user;
outputting, via the interface, an indication of the custom physical activity threshold;
administering to the user, based on the custom physical activity threshold, a prescribed physical activity regimen comprising accumulating at least a daily step count defined by the recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day for a treatment period, wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered to achieve a targeted change in body weight, body fatness, or cardiometabolic risk status, and wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered over a treatment period of at least 21 days;
determining, via the processor and based on the custom physical activity threshold and the steps per unit of body fat mass per day, a first predicted body composition;
outputting, via the interface, the first predicted body composition;
receiving, via an activity tracker worn by the user, an actual physical activity;
determining, via the processor and based on the actual physical activity and the steps per unit of body fat mass per day, a second predicted body composition; and
outputting, via the interface, the second predicted body composition.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because determining based at least on the body health indicator, a fat mass metric of the user and a weight/body fatness target of the user; determining based at least on the fat mass metric of the user and the weight/body fatness target of the user, a recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day; determining based on at least the recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day and using a recommendation algorithm comprising a regression model further comprising a set of rules, a custom physical activity threshold for the user; outputting an indication of the custom physical activity threshold; determining based on the custom physical activity threshold and the steps per unit of body fat mass per day, a first predicted body composition; outputting the first predicted body composition; receiving an actual physical activity; determining based on the actual physical activity and the steps per unit of body fat mass per day, a second predicted body composition; and outputting the second predicted body composition amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations of administering to the user, based on the custom physical activity threshold, a prescribed physical activity regimen comprising accumulating at least a daily step count defined by the recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day for a treatment period, wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered to achieve a targeted change in body weight, body fatness, or cardiometabolic risk status, and wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered over a treatment period of at least 21 days constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity“ because they amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 7, and 14, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an interface, a processor, an activity tracker, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computing device, and a device used to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or from being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity“ groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the interface, processor, tracker, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computing device, and device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, determining/analyzing data, administering data, and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 20-30 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1, 7, and 14 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 7, and 14. Therefore, claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 20-30 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 20-29 describe further limitations regarding types of body health indicators, the recommendation algorithm using the indicator to provide the threshold, wherein the set of rules define a relationship between a body fat percentage and the recommended steps, wherein the set of rules are associated with at least one user classification, and wherein the at least one user classification comprises user sex. Claim 30 further constitutes the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” because it describes limitations including mathematical relationships. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 7, and 14, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 7, and 14 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to receiving a first electronic signal from an interface comprising a processor, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 1/5/26.
(1) Applicant's representative respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection.
(A) As per the first argument, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) which states that “examples of "treatment" and prophylaxis" limitations encompass limitations that treat or prevent a disease or medical condition, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like. For example, an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases is considered to be a particular prophylaxis limitation that practically applies the abstract idea. See, e.g., Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066–68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500-01 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” Furthermore, Applicant should keep in mind “that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.” Applicant’s claims are not eligible because in Applicant’s case the claims are merely providing data indicating how many steps to walk each day to the user. Note that Example 43 and Example 49 recite the specific medication being administered to the patient and are therefore not analogous to Applicant’s claims.
The Examiner submits that the limitations of administering to the user, based on the custom physical activity threshold, a prescribed physical activity regimen comprising accumulating at least a daily step count defined by the recommended steps per unit of body fat mass per day for a treatment period, wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered to achieve a targeted change in body weight, body fatness, or cardiometabolic risk status, and wherein the prescribed physical activity regimen is administered over a treatment period of at least 21 days constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity“ because they amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the interface, processor, tracker, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computing device, and device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, determining/analyzing data, administering data, and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687