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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed on April 24, 2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-12 are drawn to a system and, thus, are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-12 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for providing contextual information such as personalized healthcare guidance to a user, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following a set of rules or interactions for sending and receiving data, determining an action report and if an intervention is needed, determining who to send the action report to and receive an intervention recommendation from, validating the recommendation, and sending the recommendation to the user).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
Register one or more entities with the system, wherein registering one or more entities includes establishing an entity type as one of the specific user or a responder and further;
Electronically communicate with the registered one or more entities, including receiving and sending data to and therefrom, wherein the electronic communication includes electronic communication with one or more agents of the one or more registered entities;
Electronically communicate with […(entities)], wherein a level of access to data stored at the intervention controller by one or more entities is tiered to accommodate different levels of anonymity related to the user;
[…] for electronically receiving data […] related to the specific user, wherein received data is parsed to determine whether an action related to the user should be initiated and electronically communicating an action report […],
Wherein […] determines which of the one or more registered responders should receive information from the action report to provide an intervention recommendation, and
Further wherein, […] electronically communicates information from the action report to the determined one or more registered responders and receives an intervention recommendation therefrom, validates the intervention recommendation, and electronically communicates the intervention recommendation to […] to deliver contextually relevant information to the specific user;
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
an intervention controller implemented on at least one custom-programmed server
wherein a responder is stored in a responder register
one or more additional processing components
a situation generator
intervention performer
multiple functional modules implemented on one or more computing devices grouped to the following physical layers for facilitating the electronic communications including:
an application layer
an application programming interface (API) services layer for managing internet-facing API endpoints of the system, the API service layer further including a connector service, a situation responder service and application services,
a database services layer comprising DB read/write services offered to components of the API services layer via the API endpoints, the DB service layer further including a connector DB service, a situation responder DB service, and an application DB service, and
a blockchain layer.
The noted above additional elements (intervention controller, server, responder register, processing components, situation generator, intervention performer, computer modules and layers) are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claim 1 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-12 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8, and 10-11 do not include any additional elements not already listed in their respective independent claims.
Dependent claims 5-7, 9 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
An electronic medical record (claims 5 and 12)
wherein the more or more agents is a system for handing EMRs (claim 6)
wherein the one or more agents is selected from a group consisting of: a software application executing on a computing device, or a web-based application (claim 7).
wherein the intervention performer is one of: a software application executing on a computing device, a web-based application, a chat bot, or SMS text message server. (Claim 9)
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 5-7, 9, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-12 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bore et al. (US20180137247A1), hereinafter Bore, in view of Atanda (US20190253431A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bore teaches a system for acquiring knowledge from data received from multiple sources and delivering contextually relevant information to a specific user based on the acquired knowledge, comprising:
an intervention controller implemented on at least one custom-programmed server ([0007] discloses a preventative and predictive healthcare platform including a computer server, an application, and an AI engine), the server being custom programmed to register one or more entities with the system ([0010] discloses the server is configured to download the mobile healthcare application to one or more mobile electronic devices of a platform user and of members in a support network of the platform user), wherein registering one or more entities with the system includes establishing an entity type as one of the specific user or a responder ([0038] discloses platform users, support network members, family members, and primary care providers can receive data from the application and monitor the health status of the user), and further wherein a responder is stored in a responder register ([0038] discloses allowing the platform user to add members to, or remove members from, the support network (interpreted as the responder register)).
electronically communicate with the registered one or more entities, including receiving and sending data to and therefrom, wherein the electronic communication includes electronic communication with one or more agents of the one or more registered entities ([0027] discloses the server is connected to a communication network. [0072] discloses the server is also configured to send and receive healthcare data to platform users and their support network members. [0042] discloses the mobile healthcare application accepts medical information input into the electronic device by the platform user or support network members and transmits the information to the server.);
electronically communicate with one or more additional processing components ([0027] discloses the server communicates, via electronic communication network, with one or more mobile electronic devices or one or more personal computers),
a situation generator for electronically receiving data from the intervention controller related to the specific user ([0046] discloses the healthcare platform also includes an artificial intelligence (AI) engine. [0061] discloses the AI engines includes data collection layer that collects data about the user.), wherein the situation generator parses received data to determine whether an action related to the user should be initiated and electronically communicating an action report to the intervention controller ([0048] discloses the AI engine learns about the user, analyzes their health data, and generates alerts for medical intervention which are transmitted from the server to the mobile device.),
wherein the intervention controller consults the stored responder register to determine which of the one or more registered responders should receive information from the action report to provide an intervention recommendation ([0048] discloses the alerts are transmitted from the server to the user, support network members, and/or medical care provider devices to prompt an action in response to the alert.), and
further wherein, the intervention controller electronically communicates information from the action report to the determined one or more registered responders ([0015] discloses the server transmits an alert to the mobile electronic devices of the platform user and support network when health data is outside of acceptable range.) and electronically receives an intervention recommendation therefrom, validates the intervention recommendation ([0015] discloses the AI engine can facilitate medical specialist intervention based on the level of risk and analysis of medical records), and electronically communicates the intervention recommendation to an intervention performer to deliver contextually relevant information to the specific user ([0063] discloses the useful information is delivered to platform users/network members through the mobile healthcare application, reports sent to the web portal, EMR system integration, etc. [0067] discloses the AI engine can provide video medical consultations to address medical concerns and answer medical questions from the user/members. The Examiner notes that an Intervention Performer is defined in [0088] of Applicant’s Specification as a mobile app, Web-based app, chat bot, SMS server or the like);
multiple functional modules implemented on one or more computing devices ([0007] discloses healthcare platform includes a computer server) grouped to the following physical layers for facilitating the electronic communications including,
an application layer ([0040] discloses a mobile healthcare application),
an application programming interface (API) services layer for managing internet- facing API endpoints of the system ([0028] discloses a computer server connected to an electronic communication network such as the internet and communicates via this network. Accordingly, this implies the existence of the API services layer although not explicitly mentioned in Bore, as this is how applications and systems communicate over a network), the API service layer further including a connector service, a situation responder service and application services,
a database (DB) services layer comprising DB read/write services offered to components of the API services layer via the API endpoints, the DB service layer further including a connector DB service, a situation responder DB service, and an applications DB service ([0041] discloses a secure and scalable cloud database. Accordingly, cloud databases inherently comprise read and write services and the abovementioned services), and
Bore does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Atanda teaches:
wherein a level of access to data stored at the intervention controller by one or more entities is tiered to accommodate different levels of anonymity related to the user ([0065] discloses a platform configured to enable the assignment of an access permission level for each of group of data by allowing the user to configure said access permission level or automatically assigning said access permission level from a number of pre-determine permission levels);
the API service layer including a connector service and application service ([0164] and [0251] discloses API and application layers).
a blockchain layer ([0359] discloses a blockchain).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the data access and the computer architecture layers of Bore to include access permission levels and API and blockchain layers as taught by Atanda in order to allow users to have the ability to view and manage their own data (Atanda, [0044]) and to improve security and communication.
Regarding claim 2, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein determining whether the intervention recommendation is valid is based on past performance of the one or more responders from which the intervention recommendation was received ([0064] discloses the AI engine makes recommendations based on analyzing medical histories).
Regarding claim 3, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein determining whether the intervention recommendation is valid is based on qualifications of the one or more responders from which the intervention recommendation was received ([0062]-[0063] discloses the AI engine operates based on rules provided by medical experts and data scientists).
Regarding claim 4, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein the selected one or more responders are selected from the responders based on capabilities of the responders ([0054] discloses providers are selected based on medical specialties and quality metrics).
Regarding claim 5, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein the received data related to the specific user is an electronic medical record (EMR) associated with a health situation ([0028] discloses the medical and personal records include, but are not limited to, radiology reports, prescription records, genomic data, lab test results, insurance claim history, family history, etc. [0062]-[0063] discloses aggregated personal and health records and EMR system integration. [0028] and [0064] disclose the actionable situation are treatment recommendations as an example).
Regarding claim 6, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein the one or more agents is a system for handling EMRs ([0062] discloses a data collection, capturing, and completion layer that collects a user’s health data and a storage and retrieval layer that stores the aggregated personal and health records of the user).
Regarding claim 7, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 6. Bore further teaches wherein the one or more agents is selected from the group consisting of: a software application executing on a computing device, or a web- based application ([0061]-[0062] discloses AI engine consists of data collection layers, which is a software program).
Regarding claim 8, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein the received data is at least one of data related to a health condition, medical history, prescribed medication, and non-prescribed medication of the specific user ([0032] discloses prescribed medications, medical conditions, HbA1c levels (history). [0042] discloses over the counter medications. [0044] discloses management of medical issues and chronic conditions).
Regarding claim 9, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 1. Bore further teaches wherein the intervention performer is one of: a software application executing on a computing device, a web-based application, a chat bot, or a short message service (SMS) text message server ([0038]-[0040] discloses the mobile healthcare management platform/application that enables data sharing and clinical alerts and interventions among members and care givers. [0063] discloses the useful information generated by the AI engine is delivered to platform users via the information delivery layer through the mobile healthcare application, web portal, or integrated into the EMR) .
Regarding claim 10, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 9. Bore further teaches wherein the intervention performer is adapted to communicate with the one or more agents ([0046] discloses the healthcare platform includes the AI engine which can send alerts to the user/network members).
Regarding claim 11, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 9. Bore further teaches wherein the intervention performer is accessible by a person associated with the one or more agents ([0038]-[0042] discloses the healthcare platform is accessible by the user through the healthcare application).
Regarding claim 12, Bore/Atanda teach the system according to claim 11. Bore further teaches wherein the received data is an EMR associated with a specific user ([0062] discloses the personal and health records of the user are collected) and the intervention performer is accessible by the specific user ([0038] discloses the healthcare application is accessible to the user through their electronic devices), the intervention performer being adapted to display the intervention recommendation to the specific user ([0063] discloses the useful information generated by the AI engine is delivered to platform users via the information delivery layer through the mobile healthcare application, web portal, or integrated into the EMR).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Hoggle et al. (US20150297082A1) teaches: Medical Monitoring System
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101
Applicant has canceled claims 13-20, rendering the rejection of those claims moot. Applicant argues that “Independent claim 1 is amended herein and claims a system, including specific elements directed to implementing components. These elements are recited with specificity and thus link any abstract idea to a specific technological environment. The Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, are patent-eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has characterized the elements in amended claim 1 to be additional elements that apply the abstract idea. Further, “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not sufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I)). As such, the patents remain subject matter ineligible.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102
Applicant has canceled claims 13-20 rendering the rejection of those claims as moot. Applicant has amended claims 1 to include specific elements not discloses in Bore. The Examiner has applied new art in combination with Bore et al. to teach the elements not disclosed in Bore under the 35 USC 103. The dependent claims are also included in the new rejection under 35 USC 103.
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 MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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 on 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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights