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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 2, 2025 has been entered.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method for managing patient recovery, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 15-20 are drawn to a system for managing patient recovery, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A method for generating and updating one or more user interfaces of a mobile software application operating on a mobile computing device associated with a stroke survivor having an impairment, the method comprising:
tracking, from a plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices, a first state of stroke survivor post discharge from a hospital;
generating a user interface configured to be displayed on the mobile computing device, wherein the user interface is dynamically updated based on the tracked first state of the stroke survivor;
including a first learning content in the user interface, said first learning content selected based on the first tracked state;
determining that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment affecting a first side of a user;
modifying visual appearance of the first learning content on the first user interface based on the determination that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment; and
displaying the learning content on the user interface with the modified visual appearance based on the determination that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, and/or a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions – in this case, the steps of tracking a patient state, including learning content, determining that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment affecting a first side of the user, modifying the visual appearance of the learning content based on the determining, and displaying the modified learning content are reasonably interpreted as following rules or instructions to provide learning content for the patient to follow in the patient’s recovery), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 15 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 15 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 15 recites a system and corresponding hardware processors.
Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-20 include other limitations, for example Claims 2-7 and 16-19 recite tracking user metrics corresponding to the first learning content, Claims 8-9 recite that the first learning content corresponds to an identification, Claim 10 recites providing a dashboard to the user, Claim 11 recites updating the first learning content based on scores from an assessment, Claim 12 recites generating questions to present to the user prior to an appointment, Claim 13 recites recording an answer from the appointment, Claims 14 and 20 recite enabling a user to create second learning content, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 15.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the smart phone and storage devices) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the non-transitory storage devices and the mobile computing device, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0057]-[0060] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the first and second content being learning content, and/or the user being a stroke survivor, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of modifying the learning content based on an asymmetric impairment, which amounts to selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-20 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the metrics recited in dependent Claims 2-7 and 16-19, and the types of data being displayed in dependent Claims 9-14 and 20), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 1 and 15, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the mobile computing device and storage devices), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0057]-[0060] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the mobile computing device and storage devices) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives the user interface data over a network, for example the Internet, e.g. see [0051] of the as-filed Specification;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of the stroke survivor state data on a database and/or electronic memory; and/or
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing the first state of the stroke survivor and retrieving the first state data in order to ultimately determine the information to be presented to the user and modified on the user interface.
Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the metrics recited in dependent Claims 2-7 and 16-19, and the types of data being displayed in dependent Claims 9-14 and 20), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 1 and 15, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (US 2016/0378950) in view of Tanaka (US 2010/0016730).
Regarding Claim 1, Reiner teaches the following: A method for generating and updating one or more user interfaces of a mobile software application operating on a mobile computing device associated with a stroke survivor having an impairment, the method comprising (The system includes a client computer that executes a client application, wherein the client computer may include a cell phone (i.e. a mobile computing device), e.g. see Reiner [0041] and [0048]. Additionally, the patient may include patients who have suffered a stroke and have been discharged but who has ongoing problems (i.e. impairments), e.g. see Reiner [0296].), the method comprising:
tracking, from a plurality of network-based non-transitory storage devices, a first state of stroke survivor post discharge from a hospital (The patient may be a stroke survivor who has been discharged, wherein the system tracks actions or status of patients post-discharge, e.g. see Reiner [0296], and constructs patient profiles that include patient clinical status, e.g. see Reiner [0133] and [0259].);
generating a user interface configured to be displayed on the mobile computing device, wherein the user interface is dynamically updated based on the tracked first state of the stroke survivor (The system determines intervention strategies including educational programs based on the patient profile (i.e. the tracked first state), wherein the system determines what content is to be delivered based on patient data as it becomes available (i.e. the learning data provided is updated based on the tracked first state), e.g. see Reiner [0269], wherein the system constructs a user interface including various display elements that are displayed on the client computer, e.g. see Reiner [0042] and [0045]-[0046], and wherein the system provides educational material to the patient, e.g. see Reiner [0121] and [0374].).
But Reiner does not teach and Tanaka teaches the following:
determining that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment affecting a first side of a user (The system is for use with patients suffering from Unilateral Spatial Neglect (USN) conditions including stroke, e.g. see Tanaka [0094], wherein the system determines whether the patient is suffering from an impairment in a particular side, e.g. see Tanaka [0056]-[0059] and [0085].);
modifying visual appearance of the first learning content on the first user interface based on the determination that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment (The system changes (i.e. modifies) the data displayed to the patient based on the patient condition, e.g. see Tanaka [0084]-[0085] and [0091]. For example, the system may move displayed information to an area other than the area that is a visual field defect region for the patient, e.g. see Tanaka [0094] and [0097].); and
displaying the learning content on the user interface with the modified visual appearance based on the determination that the impairment is an asymmetric impairment (The system changes the data displayed to the patient based on the patient condition, e.g. see Tanaka [0084]-[0085] and [0091]. For example, the system may move displayed information to an area other than the area that is a visual field defect region for the patient, e.g. see Tanaka [0094] and [0097].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Reiner to incorporate determining the patient condition and modifying the displayed content based on the determination as taught by Tanaka in order to enable the rehabilitation of the patient in an efficient and effective manner, e.g. see Tanaka [0092].
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of Claim 15 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a method whereas Claim 15 recites a system comprising one or more hardware processors. Specifically pertaining to Claim 15, Examiner notes that Reiner teaches a computer system including a processor of the computer system, e.g. see Reiner [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claim 15.
Claims 2-3, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner and Tanaka in view of Eid (US 2017/0109501).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Reiner and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Eid teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising storing one or more metrics corresponding to the stroke survivor after one or more first learning content user interfaces are viewed by the stroke survivor, wherein the one or more metrics are stored in relation with a first electronic identification corresponding to the first learning content (The system calculates a pre-content score from patient responses to the questionnaire, and a post-content score (i.e. one or more metrics) from patient responses to the questionnaire after the patient has viewed the education content (i.e. the first learning content), wherein the educational content is identified and retrieved based on the patient profile which includes at least the patient scores, e.g. see Eid [0041]-[0042], [0046], and [0050], Fig. 2.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate the pre- and post-content scores to determine education content to be provided to the patient as taught by Eid in order to improve the patient’s understanding/knowledge of his or her medical conditions, e.g. see Eid [0030].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and Eid further teaches the following:
The method of Claim 2, further comprising generating analysis based on the stored one or more metrics corresponding to a plurality of stroke survivors for the first learning content (The system calculates a pre-content score from patient responses to the questionnaire, and a post-content score (i.e. one or more metrics) from patient responses to the questionnaire after the patient has viewed the education content (i.e. the first learning content), wherein the pre- and post-content scores are utilized to determine a combined score (i.e. an analysis), e.g. see Eid [0050], Fig. 2.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate the combined content score to determine education content to be provided to the patient as taught by Eid in order to improve the patient’s understanding/knowledge of his or her medical conditions, e.g. see Eid [0030], and because doing so could be performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Reiner and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Eid further teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising updating the first learning content based on one or more scores measured from an assessment (The system calculates a pre-content score from patient responses to the questionnaire (i.e. an assessment), and a post-content score (i.e. one or more metrics) from patient responses to the questionnaire after the patient has viewed the education content (i.e. the first learning content), wherein the pre- and post-content scores are utilized to determine a combined score (i.e. an analysis), e.g. see Eid [0050], Fig. 2, and wherein the system may construct a query to the educational content databases based on the scores, e.g. see Eid [0043] – that is, the pre-content score may determine an initial query, and the post-content and/or combined scores may be used to determine subsequent (i.e. updated) queries for educational content.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify Reiner to incorporate utilizing the scores to determine education content to be provided to the patient as taught by Eid in order to improve the patient’s understanding/knowledge of his or her medical conditions, e.g. see Eid [0030], and because doing so could be performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding Claims 16-17, the limitations of Claims 16-17 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claims 2-3, with the sole difference being that Claims 2-3 recite a method whereas Claims 16-17 recite a system comprising one or more hardware processors. Specifically pertaining to Claims 16-17, Examiner notes that Reiner teaches a computer system including a processor of the computer system, e.g. see Reiner [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claims 2-3 are similarly applied to Claims 16-17.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid in view of Srinivasan (US 2017/0178527).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 3, but does not teach and Srinivasan teaches the following:
The method of Claim 3, further comprising changing a timing of delivery of the first learning content to the mobile software application based on the generated analysis (The system determines a timing of a presentation of data to a user based on at least one user evaluation criteria (i.e. generated analysis), wherein the displayed data includes information relating to user medical conditions (i.e. learning content), e.g. see Srinivasan [0025], [0027], and [0041].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid to incorporate adjusting the timing of the presentation of the content to the user as taught by Srinivasan in order to ensure that the patient understands the content, e.g. see Srinivasan [0019].
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of Claim 18 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 4, with the sole difference being that Claim 4 recites a method whereas Claim 18 recites a system comprising one or more hardware processors. Specifically pertaining to Claim 18, Examiner notes that Reiner teaches a computer system including a processor of the computer system, e.g. see Reiner [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 4 are similarly applied to Claim 18.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid in view of Di Lascia (US 2013/0226608).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Di Lascia teaches the following:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the one or more metrics comprises a compliance measurement (The system includes a patient viewing educational material and answering a quiz regarding the content of the educational material, and further includes scoring the patient’s answers, wherein the score determines an amount of points for a compliance indicator for the patient, e.g. see Di Lascia [0112].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid to incorporate one of the metrics being indicative of compliance as taught by Di Lascia in order to enable a healthcare provider to incentivize the patient to view the educational material, e.g. see Di Lascia [0112].
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of Claim 19 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 5, with the sole difference being that Claim 5 recites a method whereas Claim 19 recites a system comprising one or more hardware processors. Specifically pertaining to Claim 19, Examiner notes that Reiner teaches a computer system including a processor of the computer system, e.g. see Reiner [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 5 are similarly applied to Claim 19.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid in view of Banet (US 2019/0076054).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Banet teaches the following:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the one or more metrics comprise a fall detection event (The system presents the patient with an instructional video (i.e. first learning content) prompting the patient to assume a particular position which enables the system to determine the patient’s posture, e.g. see Banet [0109]. The system further continuously monitors the patient’s posture and determines that the patient is falling based on the patient’s posture, e.g. see Banet [0027], [0075], and [0104]-[0107].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid to incorporate monitoring fall events as taught by Banet in order to accurately monitor patient activity in a home setting, e.g. see Banet [0027].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid in view of Nguyen (US 2017/0091406).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid teaches the limitations of Claim 2, but does not teach and Nguyen teaches the following:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the one or metrics comprise an indication of infection (The system presents the patient with education materials (i.e. first learning content) relevant to the patient condition or status of the patient’s treatment, e.g. see Nguyen [0153]. Additionally, the system further continuously monitors patient data, including tracking indications of an infection, e.g. see Nguyen [0090], [0095], [0101], [0121], [0193], and [0222].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Eid to incorporate monitoring patient infection as taught by Nguyen in order to ensure that procedures are being followed properly and to potentially avoid negative consequences such as infections, e.g. see Nguyen [0189].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner and Tanaka in view of Kinouchi (US 2007/0025197).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Reiner and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Kinouchi teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, wherein a first electronic identification is associated with the learning content (The system includes a plurality of content, for example audio, video, or text, wherein each content includes an identifier, e.g. see Kinouchi [0034] and [0052].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of providing content to a user to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate the content identifier as taught by Kinouchi in order to enable users to identify content to be removed, e.g. see Kinouchi [0053], [0079], and [0083].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Kinouchi teaches the limitations of Claim 8, and Kinouchi further teaches the following:
The method of Claim 8, further comprising removing the learning content from the mobile software application based on the first electronic identification (The content may be removed based on the content identifier, e.g. see Kinouchi [0053], [0079], and [0083].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of providing content to a user to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate deleting the content based on the content identifier as taught by Kinouchi in order to enable users to identify content that should be removed, e.g. see Kinouchi [0053], [0079], and [0083].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner and Tanaka in view of Ginsburg (US 2017/0116373).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Reiner and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Ginsburg teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising providing a dashboard user interface, said dashboard interface comprising a plurality of tabs (The system includes a plurality of tabs, for example Guidelines, Images, Alerts, and Notes, e.g. see Ginsburg [0226], Figs. 15 and 18.); and including a notification indicator adjacent to one of the plurality of tabs, said notification indicator corresponding to an activity detected from the mobile software application (The system may display a special alert icon on a tab when the tab contains important or critical data, e.g. see Ginsburg [0226], Figs. 15 and 18.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user monitoring to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate displaying the plurality of tabs and the alert icon as taught by Ginsburg in order to inform the user of important or critical data, e.g. see Ginsburg [0226].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner and Tanaka in view of Vancho (US 2016/0335399).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Reiner and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Vancho teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising generating a suggested list of questions based on the first state prior to an appointment with a health care team member (The system generates a medical history questionnaire and presents the questionnaire to the patient prior to the physician making direct contact with the patient (i.e. prior to an appointment), e.g. see Vancho [0008]-[0009] and [0015].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of providing content to a user to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate presenting the questions to a patient prior to the appointment as taught by Vancho in order to optimize patient treatment, e.g. see Vancho [0029].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Vancho in view of Grant (US 2014/0088985).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Vancho teaches the limitations of Claim 12, but does not teach and Grant teaches the following:
The method of Claim 12, further comprising providing an ability to digitally record an answer from the appointment (The system enables a patient to conduct a virtual visit (i.e. an appointment) with a physician, wherein the patient may conduct and submit a recorded Q&A chat session, e.g. see Grant [0062]-[0063].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Reiner, Tanaka, and Vancho to incorporate recording any responses provided as taught by Grant in order to improve recommendations given during a virtual consultation, e.g. see Grant [0091].
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reiner and Tanaka in view of Nedivi (US 2018/0301046).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Reiner and Tanaka teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach and Nedivi teaches the following:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising enabling for a plurality of users, from a web interface, an ability to add ideas for a plurality of learning content, write a second learning content, review the second learning content, and send the second learning content to the mobile software application (The system enables users to create (i.e. write), delete, store, move, or modify (i.e. add ideas to and/or review) learning objects in various storage locations within the system, e.g. see Nedivi [0038] and [0042], wherein the system includes a smart phone or PDA, and a Content Management System (CMS) stored on a backend system, for example a server computer, e.g. see Nedivi [0021] and [0035], Fig. 1.), without requiring the plurality of users to download any local copies corresponding to the learning content and without requiring opening of separate software applications (The system includes a web-based app running on the client device, e.g. see Nedivi [0023]-[0024], wherein the backend server may store learning objects, e.g. see Nedivi [0035] – that is, the system does not require the user to download a local copy of the learning objects and/or open additional software applications.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of providing content to a user to modify the combination of Reiner and Tanaka to incorporate enabling a user to add and review learning content as taught by Nedivi in order to improve learning effectiveness, e.g. see Nedivi [0017].
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of Claim 20 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 14, with the sole difference being that Claim 14 recites a method whereas Claim 20 recites a system comprising one or more hardware processors. Specifically pertaining to Claim 20, Examiner notes that Reiner teaches a computer system including a processor of the computer system, e.g. see Reiner [0015], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 14 are similarly applied to Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 2, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that the present claims are patent eligible because it is not directed towards an abstract idea and is instead directed towards an improved user interface, e.g. see pg. 6 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
An invention that recites a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface according to the amount of use of each icon is not directed towards an abstract idea, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1), and an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application is patent eligible because it shows an improvement to computer-functionality, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). However, the presently claimed invention is not properly analogized to either of the aforementioned examples because the claimed invention does not claim the specifics of the actual user interface beyond generating the user interface “based on” the first state of the stroke survivor, and modifying the visual appearance of the user interface based on the stroke survivor having an asymmetric impairment. Furthermore, although Applicants allege that the claimed invention recites an “improved” user interface, this amounts to alleging an improvement in a conclusory manner, as it does not provide any detail as to what the improvement actually is and/or how the improvement is achieved. Improvements claimed in a conclusory manner do not constitute a technological improvement, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 2, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. As stated above, the newly amended claim limitations of Claims 1 and 15 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, and Tanaka is now cited to address the newly amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Examiner, Art Unit 3681