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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed December 1, 2025, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 9, 12, 20, and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, and 11 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101, starting pg. 10 of Remarks:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 Define Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In determining the extent to which subject matter is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Court has laid out a two-part test. See Alice Corp. v. CLSBank Int'l, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (hereinafter "Alice"). Guidelines based on this test have subsequently been adopted by the US Patent and Trademark Office to guide Examiners' analysis of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (December 16, 2014) (hereinafter "Interim Guidance"), July 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance (hereinafter "Update to the Interim Guidance"), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 Guidance") for determining subj ect matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), and MP.E.P §2106. Under Alice, as well as under the various Guidance noted above, the Examiner is required to first consider whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter ("Step 1"), whether a claim is "directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea," ("Step 2A"), and if it is, whether "the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception." ("Step 2B"). Interim Guidance, p. 1 (emphases in original).
The M.P.E.P details that "the initial burden is on the Examiner to explain why a claim or claims are unpatentable clearly and specifically, so that applicant has sufficient notice and is able to effectively respond." See M.P.E.P § 2106.07. More specifically, "the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception." See MP.E.P § 2106.07.
Here, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to "managing personal behavior or managing interactions between people," which is a "method of organizing human activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed below.
According to the 2019 updated guidelines, under prong 1 of the 2A analysis, the Examiner is first required "to identify the specific limitation(s) in the claims... that... recites an abstract idea." The Examiner is instructed to utilize "the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas in Section I instead of comparing the claimed concept to the USPTO's prior 'Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas."' 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, p. 15.
The Examiners are further instructed to analyze a second prong of the 2A analysis. For example, the guidelines instruct that "if the claim recites a judicial exception..., the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two." Id., at p. 15. The Guidelines go on to describe that "if the identified limitations(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas..., analysis should proceed to prong two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application." The guidelines clarify that "a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible." Id. at p. 18.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the M.P.E.P and the 2019 Guidelines instruct the Examiner to determine whether "the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception." Id. The Examiner is instructed to "identify any additional elements (specifically point to claim features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception, and explain the reason(s) that the additional elements taken individually, and also taken as a combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception." See M.P.E.P § 2106.07.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the pending §101 rejections at least because 1) the claims are patent eligible because the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions under prong 1, 2) even if, arguendo, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application such that the claims are patent eligible, and 3) even if, arguendo, the claims are abstract, the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and, thus, are patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of these rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above and maintains the claims recite abstract elements.
1. THE CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THE CLAIMS DOES NOT RECITE ANY JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS UNDER PRONG 1
As stated in the 2019 Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception, it is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible. As discussed below, Applicant submits that the claim does not recite a judicial exception under Prong 1, and therefore is eligible.
Here, the Examiner asserts that the claims "cover[] interactions between people. "Applicant notes that this assertion by the Examiner is accompanied by little to no rationale or reasoning. Here, the Examiner has simply listed various elements of the claims and has then asserted that those elements recite ineligible subject matter. The Examiner has made no effort to identify in what way any of the identified elements, which are unrelated to the alleged abstract idea, should be considered to be directed to the abstract idea.
See Non-Final Rejection dated 07/29/2025, pp. 18-21 where specific claim elements are identified as being abstract and why.
Applicant further notes that the claims, especially as amended, recite multiple features, which include a level of specificity that the Examiner has failed to acknowledge in order to assert that the claims lack specificity. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a judicial exception as asserted by the Examiner.
The specific claim elements were abstract. A combination of abstract elements is still abstract.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines. For instance, the claims do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind.
For example, claim 1, as amended, is directed to a computer-implemented method for health data analysis and notification, which addresses a specific technical problem: how to efficiently and effectively detect and communicate change points in health data using an electronic device and does so by synchronizing notifications modalities when a notification is sent.
Respectfully, detect and communicate change points is not solving a technical problem. There is no improvement to computer or other technology itself.
Applicant respectfully submits that the features listed above do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations or any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Nor do these features recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. By way of example, evaluating health data in accordance with defined criteria, generating a notification using a computer, and synchronizing two or more modalities of notification types are far too complex to be performed in the human mind and do not relate to organizing human activity. Moreover, the claims have been amended to recite operations that can only be performed by a computerized device, rather than by a human. For example, a human does not "access . .. from memory of [an] electronic user device, first health data of a first type collected during a time window," nor does a human "caus[e], by the electronic user device, presentation of the notification at the electronic user device, wherein the presentation of the notification comprises a synchronization of at least two or more of an auditory alert, a haptic alert, or a visual alert." Not only do the amendments focus on operations performed by an electronic user device, they also incorporate additional limitations about new computer operations previously unexamined by the Office. The claim as a whole is not merely an idea for organizing human activity or a fundamental economic practice. Rather, it is an improvement to the field of electronic health monitoring and notification systems, which is inherently technical. The synchronization of multiple alert modalities solves a technical problem in user device interaction-ensuring timely, effective, and non-ambiguous communication of critical health events, which cannot be performed purely as a mental process. The remaining independent claims recite similar features. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits, once again, that the claims do not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant further notes that the Guidelines instruct that "the analysis should not proceed beyond Prong 1 absent a "rare circumstance." Applicant respectfully requests the Office to identify the reasoning as to why the analysis of these claims should proceed beyond Prong 1.
With all due respect, notifying a change of health point (status) for example is not a technology. Arguably, automating a manual process is not enough to make abstract claims statutory. Further, collecting, analyzing and displaying results have been shown to be abstract as a mental process.
2. EVEN IF, ARGUENDO, THE CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA, THE CLAIMS INTEGRATE THE ABSTRACT IDEA INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION SUCH THAT THE CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE
As stated above, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, instructs Examiners to analyze a second prong of the step 2A analysis. The 2019 guidelines further describe that "if the identified limitations(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas..., analysis should proceed to prong two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application." p. 15. The guidelines clarify that "a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible." Id. at p. 18.
Applicant respectfully submits that, even if, arguendo, the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims integrate that judicial exception into a practical application. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of claim 1 impose meaningful limits on any alleged judicial exception.
In the Office Action, the Office seems to conflate "integration of the judicial exception into a practical application" under Step 2A Prong 2 with concepts relating to "significantly more" under Step 2B. Applicant notes that while "significantly more" can be used to show integration, there are other ways as well. The Office seems to short circuit the analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 without properly considering that the claims recite "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." MPEP § 2106.04.
The above were broken out separately in the analysis. See pp. 21-22 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 07/29/2025 where the two steps are separately addressed.
For example, claim 1, as amended, recites, among other things:
performing, by the electronic user device, an operation selected from a group consisting of (A) and (B):
(A) in accordance with a determination that the first change is not the first change point, refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating any notifications corresponding to the first change; and
(B) in accordance with a determination that the first change is the first change point:
generating, by the electronic user device, a notification that includes information about the first change point;
prior to sending the notification, generating, by the electronic user device, additional change point information about a second change point in second health data when a second evaluation of the second health data with respect to a second set of change point criteria is indicative of the second change point;
adding, by the electronic user device, the additional change point information to the notification such that the notification includes the information about the first change point and the additional change point information about the second change point;
causing, by the electronic user device, presentation of the notification at the electronic user device, wherein the presentation of the notification comprises a synchronization of at least two or more of an auditory alert, a haptic alert, or a visual alert; and
refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating an additional notification about the second change point for a future time period.
The 2019 Guidelines instruct Examiners to utilize the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The limitations include:
Improvements to the function of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article into a different state or thing.
Applying or using 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.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, at least as amended, are directed to an unconventional and non-generic implementation, which renders the claim eligible. For example, the claim does not merely recite applying a known business practice on a generic computer. Instead, the claim requires the synchronization of at least two notification modalities (auditory, haptic, visual), which is not a conventional or routine practice in the field. Moreover, this synchronization is a specific improvement in the way electronic devices deliver information, ensuring robust and effective alerting, which is critical in health applications.
Noted. However, the above is recited at a high level.
From MPEP 2106.05(a)…
“During examination, the examiner should analyze the “improvements” consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 (mpep-9020-appxr. html#d0e323552) must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 (s716.html#d0e93742) on 37 CFR 1.132 (mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552) practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1d85b_2ae60_3d5) . For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 (mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302376), an applicant could submit a declaration under §1.132 (mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e323552) providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.”
Respectfully, just synchronization of two alerts is not improving computer technology and is recited at a high level of generality.
Second, Applicant submits that the claims, at least as amended, are directed to a technical improvement of reducing notifications that are sent by a user device, which results in multiple technical improvements including increased battery life, reduced bandwidth usage, and memory conservation. Moreover, as discussed during the interview, an additional improvements includes the synchronization of notifications ensuring the correct level of notification. As detailed in Applicant's as filed specification, "Additionally, because the techniques described herein reduce the number of notifications provided to a user for trending correlated data types, user devices realize additional technical improvements including increased battery life, reduced bandwidth usage, and memory conservation. In some examples, displaying fewer notifications may reduce the effects of alarm fatigue, resulting in more meaningful delivery of notifications. Moreover, the notifications that are displayed may include selectable user interface objects that have visual characteristics based on health-related data, which may provide the user with feedback regarding the data types included in the health-related data. Providing improved visual feedback enhances the operability of the device and makes the user device interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to provide proper inputs and reducing user mistakes when operating/interacting with the device) which, additionally, reduces power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently." See Applicant's As-Filed Specification, at [0031]. By utilizing the techniques discussed in Applicant's specification, multiple technical improvements are realized, which would not be possible without this method. Id. The Office seems to imply that these savings are not sufficiently "technical" to amount to a technical improvement. Applicant respectfully disagrees and directs the Office to the examples given in the MPEP of cases where courts have identified limitations that do not integrated the judicial exception. These include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(h).
Here, especially as amended, the claims do not recite "apply it" or an equivalent. In fact, the claims recite multiple technical steps that enable the described technical improvement. Moreover, the claims do not add "extra solution activity" as the technical steps are core to the claim and the technical improvement. Finally, the claims do not generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims clearly and directly recite that the method (of claim 1) is performed by an electronic user device and that the operations relating to the technical improvement are required. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is eligible.
Moreover, the claims are additional eligible because the limitations of claim 1 individually "impose... a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." By way of example claim 1, as amended, is not drafted in such a way as to monopolize any potential judicial exception as there are many ways in which deciding which notifications to send can be realized.
The 2019 Guidance also notes that "because revised Step 2A does not evaluate whether an additional element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, examiners are reminded that a claim that includes conventional elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying the subject matter eligibility requirement of Section 101." Therefore, even if the Examiner believes that claim 1 recites a "judicial exception," which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception under Prong 2 according to the 2019 Guidance, and therefore is eligible.
3. EVEN IF, ARGUENDO, THE CLAIMS ARE ABSTRACT, THE CLAIMS AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA AND THUS QUALIFY AS ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER UNDER 35 U.S.C. §101
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the claims involve an abstract idea at some level, with which Applicant expressly disagrees, the claims are directed to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself and, thus, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. In assessing whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea, the M.P.E.P requires that the claims "must be considered as a whole." M.P.E.P. §2106.05. The M.P.E.P. further states that "Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim." Id.
The court in DDR Holdings found the claims to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In particular, the court found the claims of DDR Holdings to be patent-eligible because the "claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., No. 2013-1505, slip op. at 20. In its analysis, despite the business-related nature of the DDR Holdings claims that can be implemented on a generic computer, the court highlighted that the claims did not simply take an abstract business method from the pre-Internet world and implement it on a computer. Id. at slip op. at 19-21. Instead, the claims addressed a technological problem "particular to the internet" by implementing a solution specific to that technological environment and different from the manner suggested by routine or conventional use within the field. Id.
Here in the instant application, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology (relating to accessing health data from memory of an electronic user device, deciding whether a first notification should be sent and whether to include a second notification with the first, and synchronizing notification modalities). Further, the claims recite specific operations and features of accessing health data, comparing it within time windows, evaluating the health data in accordance with criteria, and deciding whether or not to notify a user about the changes to two different types of health data.
DDR was rooted in the use of computer technology. The solution was an improvement to computer technology (web page). Applicant is arguing synchronizing notification modalities is improving technology, but this is not taught in their specification and the claim does not reflect an improvement.
For example, from Pub. No. US 2017/0357217 to Raymann et al…
“Embodiments described herein may take the form of, be incorporated in, or operate with a suitable electronic device. One example of such a device is shown in FIG. 15 and takes the form of a wearable mechanism. As shown, the mechanism may be worn on a user's wrist and secured thereto by a band. The mechanism may have a variety of functions including, but not limited to: keeping time; monitoring a user's physiological signals and providing health-related information based at least in part on those signals; communicating (in a wired or wireless fashion) with other electronic devices, which may be different types of devices having different functionalities; providing alerts to a user, which may include audio, haptic, visual and/or other sensory output, any or all of which may be synchronized with one another; visually depicting data on a display; gather data form one or more sensors that may be used to initiate, control, or modify operations of the device; determine a location of a touch on a surface of the device and/or an amount of force exerted on the device, and use either or both as input; accepting voice input to control one or more functions; accepting tactile input to control one or more functions; and so on.” [0123]
Therefore, Applicant did not invent or improve synchronizing audio, haptic and visual data.
Contrary to the Office's assertion, these features are directed to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, there is no technical rationale for a system outside the realm of computer networks to use the above operations and features. Thus, these features are clear evidence that the claims do not simply take an abstract business method from the pre- Internet world and implement it on a computer, similarly, if not exactly, to what the court found in the DDR Holdings.
DDR actually improved computer technology, and did not use existing technology.
In Berkheimer, the Court held that "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question offact ...that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." See Berkheimer v. HP INC., No. 2017-1437, slip op. at 12 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018). In its Berkheimer Memorandum, the USPTO guides that "an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry." Berkheimer Memorandum, p. 3. "The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional." Id. The USPTO's memorandum further lists four types of evidence that the Examiner should rely on in support of the step 2B analysis: (1) an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements, (2) one or more of the court decisions as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements, (3) a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements (publication being different from a printed publication as used in 35 U.S.C. § 102), and (4) taking official notion only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional element(s) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field. See id. pp. 3-4.
The claims were not rejected under well-understood, routine, and conventional. However, a quick search indicates there is art that teaches synchronizing audio, haptic, and visual data beyond the cited art above.
The Office Action fails to identify any evidence at step 2B of the Alice analysis of a "conventional" nature of the ordered combination of the additional claims elements.
From MPEP 2106.07(a) III
“At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.”
See for example Pub. No. US 2017/0357217 to Raymann et al. for art that teaches synchronizing audio, haptic and visual data.
Furthermore, this lack of any ineligibility evidence stands in stark contrast to the above demonstration of the Applicant that the claims recite an unconventional solution effecting an improvement to a technological process.
Applicant is asserting a technical improvement, but there is no teaching of this in their specification or evidence provided by Applicant.
For at least each of the reasons above, Appellant once more submits that the claims are not directed to abstract subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the pending rejections under § 101.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendment. The amendment as claimed is just too high level to provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim interpretation is provided.
Claim 1 recites:
“performing, by the electronic user device, an operation selected from a group consisting of (A) and (B):
(A) in accordance with a determination that the first change is not the first change point, refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating any notifications corresponding to the first change; and
(B) in accordance with a determination that the first change is the first change point:
generating, by the electronic user device, a notification that includes information about the first change point;
prior to sending the notification, generating, by the electronic user device, additional change point information about a second change point in second health data when a second evaluation of the second health data with respect to a second set of change point criteria is indicative of the second change point;
adding, by the electronic user device, the additional change point information to the notification such that the notification includes the information about the first change point and the additional change point information about the second change point;
causing, by the electronic user device, display of the notification on a display of the electronic user device; and
refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating an additional notification about the second point for a future time period.”
The limitation requires the operation selected from a group consisting of (A) and (B). Therefore, the claim is interpreted as requiring both (A) and (B) and their respective limitations (i.e., the claim is limited by all of the steps), and both (A) and (B) are given patentable weight as limiting the claim. Claims 9 and 20 are interpreted in a similar manner.
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, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 are directed to a method, product, or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product Claim 9 and system Claim 20.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
accessing, by an electronic user device and form a memory of the electronic user device, first health data of a first data type collected during a time window;
comparing, by the electronic user device, a first quantity of the first health data associated with a first time sub-window of the time window with a second quantity of the first health data associated with a second time sub-window of the time window to identify a first change in the first health data;
in accordance with a first evaluation of the first and second quantities of the first health data with respect to a first set of change point criteria, determining, by the electronic user device, that the first change is a first change point in the first health data; and
performing, by the electronic user device, an operation selected from a group consisting of (A) and (B):
(A) in accordance with a determination that the first change is not the first change point, refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating any notifications corresponding to the first change; and
(B) in accordance with a determination that the first change is the first change point:
generating, by the electronic user device, a notification that includes information about the first change point;
prior to sending the notification, generating, by the electronic user device, additional change point information about a second change point in second health data when a second evaluation of the second health data with respect to a second set of change point criteria is indicative of the second change point;
adding, by the electronic user device, the additional change point information to the notification such that the notification includes the information about the first change point and the additional change point information about the second change point;
causing, by the electronic user device, presentation of the notification at the electronic user device, wherein the presentation of the notification comprises a synchronization of at least two or more of an auditory alert, a haptic alert, or a visual alert, and display of the notification on a display of the electronic user device; and
refraining, by the electronic user device, from generating an additional notification about the second point for a future time period.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior or managing interactions between people. Accessing health data, comparing first quantity of health data with second quantity of health data , evaluation of the first and second quantities with respect to a change point criteria, determining a first change in health data is a first change point, generating a notification about the first change point, generating additional change point information about a second change point, adding the additional change point information to the notification, and display the notification, which is evaluating the health of a user and teaching (notification) and includes both managing personal behavior and interaction between people (giving the claim it’s broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, para. [0029] and discussion of identify changes of a user device and inform/notify user about changes, where the user could be either a patient or another party monitoring patient). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C and mental process of a neurologist testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, where here a computer is evaluating a user’s health. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 9 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claims are accessing data, comparing and evaluating the data, and generating and display a notification, the claims are also abstract under Mental Processes grouping. Collecting, analyzing and displaying results has been shown to be abstract, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A. For example, a user (healthcare provider) can refrain from or generate a notification based on determination of a change point. Claim 1 does not even require a computer to perform a specific step, and even if a computer was claimed, using a generic computer to perform a judicial exception has been shown to be abstract (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: computer, electronic user device, memory, display (Claim 1); non-transitory computer-readable storage devices, computer system, memory, display (Claim 9); computer system, memory, processor, display (Claim 20). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The synchronization of two or more alerts is recited at a high level of generality with not specificity as to how synchronization is accomplished. 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. Therefore claims 1, 9, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0232] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. See also Pub. No. US 2016/0063848 to Moussette et al. para. [0061] and Pub. No. US 2017/0357217 to Raymann et al. para. [0123] that teaches synchronized alerts include audio, haptic, and visual for examples of prior art teachings of synchronizing audio, haptic, and visual alerts. 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. Steps such as accessing (receiving) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1, 9, and 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-19, 21, and 22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. 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. Claim 16 also recites processors and computer system that are applied at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-19, 21, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-22 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. The best prior art is considered to be Pub. No. US 2021/0366608 to Podobas. Podobas teaches accessing health data, comparing and evaluation of health data, generation of a notification. However, Podobas fails to teach performing an operation selected from a group comprising refraining from generating any notifications corresponding to a first change, prior to sending a notification generating additional change point information, and refraining from generating additional notification about a second change point for a future time period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches synching signals including audio, haptic and video:
US-9690382-B1; US-20160063848-A1; US-20170357217-A1; US-20170270265-A1
The following prior art teaches healthcare and time point:
KR-20160109510-A; KR-20160120131-A
KR 20160109510, “Device And Method Of Blood Glucose Management For Diabetic Patients,” 09/21/2016, pp. 1-44.
KR 20160120131, “Wearable Terminal And Display Device Wireless Communicating With The Same,” 10/17/2016, pp. 1-96.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684