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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1, 8, 11, 17, and 22 are amended.
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claim 11 is interpreted to have the identifier of “currently amended” instead of “previously presented” since the claim has been amended.
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 1-29 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as machine (claims 1-16) and article of manufacture (claims 17-29). Accordingly, claims 1-29 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A patient useable health monitoring system that permits daily tracking of medical conditions and journaling of information pertaining to treatments of said conditions by a patient and said patient’s caregiver and providing a graphical user interface to display overall progress related to said daily tracking and journaling, comprising:
-a processor;
-a display coupled to said processor;
-input apparatus for providing inputs to said processor;
-a wireless interface for providing said processor with wireless access to a network;
-program memory coupled to said processor;
-a non-transient memory accessible by said processor, said non-transient memory comprising program instructions executable by said processor;
-said program instructions comprising a conditions schema, a journal schema, and a user schema;
-a data tracking database for use by said processor;
-a conditions database for use by said processor;
-said conditions schema including instructions to receive, via said input apparatus, entered health conditions, commentary on said patient’s conditions, and commentary on treatment for said conditions, said conditions schema storing said health conditions, patient condition commentary, and treatment commentary in said condition database and generating a conditions table in a conditions page, said conditions page comprising a treatment plan and a retrospect of past treatments;
-said conditions schema responsive to said patient ranking an existing treatment to determine whether or not a new treatment plan is needed;
-said journaling schema comprising instructions for receiving daily journaling entries in said data tracking database and generating a journaling page in said data tracking database; and
-said user schema comprising instructions to automatically generate graphical representations from said conditions schema and said journals schema and to show said graphical representations on said display upon request from a system user;
-said user schema instructions executable by said processor utilize said data tracking database and said conditions database to track patient consistency with said treatment plan and to generate a graphical representation of said patient consistency; and
-said health monitoring system operable to generate treatment effectiveness information to a user based upon archived patient ranking of conditions.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because tracking medical conditions by entering information in a journaling page to see progress related to the condition is managing user’s health (i.e. managing personal behavior).
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because receiving health conditions and generating a conditions table for a treatment plan and journaling page can all be performed in the human mind and using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A patient useable health monitoring system that permits daily tracking of medical conditions and journaling of information pertaining to treatments of said conditions by a patient and said patient’s caregiver and providing a graphical user interface to display overall progress related to said daily tracking and journaling, comprising:
-a processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26, 43);
-a display coupled to said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43);
-input apparatus for providing inputs to said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43);
-a wireless interface for providing said processor with wireless access to a network (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43);
-program memory coupled to said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44);
-a non-transient memory accessible by said processor, said non-transient memory comprising program instructions executable by said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44);
-said program instructions comprising a conditions schema, a journal schema, and a user schema (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-28);
-a data tracking database for use by said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44);
-a conditions database for use by said processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44);
-said conditions schema including instructions (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 26-28) to receive, via said input apparatus (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43), entered health conditions, commentary on said patient’s conditions, and commentary on treatment for said conditions, said conditions schema (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) storing said health conditions, patient condition commentary, and treatment commentary in said condition database (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) and generating a conditions table in a conditions page, said conditions page comprising a treatment plan and a retrospect of past treatments (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 45);
-said conditions schema (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) responsive to said patient ranking an existing treatment to determine whether or not a new treatment plan is needed;
-said journaling schema comprising instructions (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) for receiving daily journaling entries in said data tracking database and generating a journaling page in said data tracking database (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 46); and
-said user schema comprising instructions (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) to automatically generate graphical representations from said conditions schema and said journals schema and to show said graphical representations on said display upon request from a system user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43);
-said user schema instructions executable by said processor utilize said data tracking database and said conditions database (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44) to track patient consistency with said treatment plan and to generate a graphical representation of said patient consistency; and
-said health monitoring system (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 43-44) operable to generate treatment effectiveness information to a user based upon archived patient ranking of conditions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim
17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim
17 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: The claim specifies processor for displaying, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: The claim specifies processor transmitting to third party, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, 19: The claim specifies user schema generating graphical representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies processor transmitting graphical representation via wireless interface, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, 20: The claim specifies user schema generating display, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, 21: The claim specifies journaling schema receiving and storing and processor displaying, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, 22: The claim specifies user schema permitting patient to check health conditions, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, 23: The claim specifies journaling schema receiving and storing, processor to display, and user schema access and generate graphical representations, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10, 24: The claim specifies processor to track, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11, 25: The claim specifies program instructions to display, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12, 26: The claim specifies instructions to generate tables, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13, 27: The claim specifies conditions schema providing ranking scale utilizing to assist user to determine if new treatment plan is needed, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14, 28: The claim specifies journaling schema to store and display treatment plan and store and display images and videos, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies the system to produce graphical representations, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16, 29: The claim specifies graphical representations using a graphic user interface to visualize, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18: The claim specifies user schema to track user consistency with the treatment plans and generate graphical representations, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receive entered health conditions and commentary, receiving daily journaling entries, generate graphical representations on display upon request from a user, generate a graphical representation of patient consistency, generate treatment effectiveness, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); generating a conditions table retrospect of past treatments, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); storing health conditions and commentaries, tracking patient consistency with treatment plan, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 21, 23-25, 28-29, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claim 3, 5 (transmit generated graphical representations), 6 (display treatment progression), 7 (display user created variables), 11 (display list of conditions), 14 (display treatment plan), 16 (provide interface to visualize), 25 (display list of conditions), 28 (display treatment conditions, images, and videos) e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 14 (store treatment plan), 24 (track an index of said conditions), 28 (store images and videos) e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 7, 9, 21, 23 (receive and store) e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-29
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.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilvert (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0246299) in view of T et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0198169) and further in view of Psynik et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0114689).
As per claim 1, Gilvert teaches a patient useable health monitoring system that permits daily tracking of medical conditions and journaling of information pertaining to treatments of said conditions by a patient and said patient’s caregiver and providing a graphical user interface to display overall progress related to said daily tracking and journaling, comprising:
-a processor (Gilvert: para. 54);
-a display coupled to said processor (Gilvert: para. 83);
-input apparatus for providing inputs to said processor (Gilvert: para. 83);
-a wireless interface for providing said processor with wireless access to a network (Gilvert: para. 54);
-program memory coupled to said processor (Gilvert: para. 54, 56);
-a non-transient memory accessible by said processor, said non-transient memory comprising program instructions executable by said processor (Gilvert: para. 54);
-said program instructions comprising a conditions schema, a journal schema, and a user schema;
-a data tracking database for use by said processor (Gilvert: para. 41, 61, 75; Tracking user’s activity, location, steps, and a digital diary.);
-a conditions database for use by said processor (Gilvert: para. 67, 61; User’s health data is sent to the repository.);
-said conditions schema including instructions to receive, via said input apparatus, entered health conditions (Gilvert: para. 40, Receive data from patients, caregivers, sensors, EHR, etc.), commentary on said patient’s conditions (Gilvert: para. 42; Create and maintain profile on patient’s lifestyle and treatment.), and commentary on treatment for said conditions (Gilvert: para. 42, 51; The platform provides treatment for chronic conditions.), said conditions schema storing said health conditions (Gilvert: para. 40, Receive data from patients, caregivers, sensors, EHR, etc.), patient condition commentary (Gilvert: para. 42; Create and maintain profile on patient’s lifestyle and treatment.), and treatment commentary in said condition database (Gilvert: para. 107, 42, 51; The platform provides treatment for chronic conditions.) and generating a conditions table in a conditions page, said conditions page comprising a treatment plan and a retrospect of past treatments (Gilvert: para. 46; para. 135; claim 10; Provide patient’s medical history and current treatment. Dashboard provides medicine list, medicine intake, biometric data, nutrition, etc.);
-said journaling schema comprising instructions for receiving daily journaling entries in said data tracking database and generating a journaling page in said data tracking database (Gilvert: para. 41, 47, 75; The platform tracks patient’s measurements.).
Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches:
-said conditions schema responsive to said patient ranking an existing treatment to determine whether or not a new treatment plan is needed (T: para. 37; para. 64; para. 69; para. 143; Prior patients success rate is calculated for treatments based on number of factors and the user is provided with a display and interaction. System provides testimonials regarding treatment plan.);
-said user schema comprising instructions to automatically generate graphical representations from said conditions schema and said journals schema and to show said graphical representations on said display upon request from a system user (T: para. 42; para. 51; generation of a model based on health information of the patient on treatment of the diagnosed condition.); and
-said health monitoring system operable to generate treatment effectiveness information to a user based upon archived patient ranking of conditions (T: para. 65; Generating success rate based on several factors regarding treatments.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kenney would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of T to the teachings of Gilvert would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying graphical representation of treatment effectiveness to Gilvert teaching health monitoring system for a user would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that improved selection of condition treatment plans (T: para. 25).
Gilvert and T do not explicitly teach the following, however, Psynik teaches:
-said user schema instructions executable by said processor utilize said data tracking database and said conditions database to track patient consistency with said treatment plan and to generate a graphical representation of said patient consistency (Psynik: para. 90; Providing a graphical representation of compliance data.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Psynik would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Psynik to the teachings of Gilvert and T would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying graphical representation of treatment compliance to Gilvert and T teaching health monitoring system for a user would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that can provide relationships between uniform, discreate data streams to achieve effective analytical results (Psynik: para. 14).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert and T do not explicitly teach the following, however, Psynik teaches wherein:
-said processor is operable to show said graphical representation of patient consistency on said display (Psynik: para. 90; Providing a graphical representation of compliance data.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert and T do not teach wherein: said processor is operable to transmit said graphical representation of user consistency to a third party via said wireless interface (Psynik: para. 11; para. 177; para. 90).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Psynik would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Psynik to the teachings of Gilvert and T would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying transmission of consistency to third party users to Gilvert and T teaching health monitoring system for a user would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide an efficient and consistent data (Psynik: para. 12).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches wherein: said user schema instructions are executable by said processor automatically generate a graphical representation showing effectiveness of said treatment plans (T: figure 6F).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 is as described. Gilvert and T do not explicitly teach the following, however, Pysnik teaches wherein: said processor is operable to selectively transmit said graphical representation showing effectiveness and said graphical representation of patient consistency via said wireless interface (Psynik: para. 11; para. 177; para. 90).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 6, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches wherein:
-said user schema instructions are executable to automatically generate and to visually display graphical representations of said conditions and treatment progression (T: para. 73-78; Provide graphs of success rates of different treatment plans and its progression with different patients.); and
-said graphical representations show how said patient’s condition is changing and provide visualization of amelioration of improvements and quantifiable aspects of said journal entries and said conditions via a graphical user interface (T: para. 73-78; para. 80; The graph is presented with interactive buttons which can provide additional information.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 7, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein:
-said journaling schema instructions are executable to receive and store patient created variables within said journaling page (Gilvert: para. 50);
-said processor is operable to display said patient created variables (Gilvert: para. 50; Platform is provided to track.); and
-said user schema instructions are executable to create one of more graphical representations of said patient created variables (Gilvert: para. 50; Platform is provided to show tracking.).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 7 is as described. Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches wherein:
-said user schema comprising instructions are executable to permit said patient to check whether one of said one or more health conditions is improving or not (T: para. 89; Process patient’s historical data to calculate success rate of the treatment plan.); and
-comprising instructions to generate graphical representations from said patient selected variables (T: para. 93; Patient can select factors for the engine to prioritize and analyze.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein:
-said journaling schema instructions are executable to receive and store patient created variables within said journaling page (Gilvert: para. 41; para. 50);
-said processor is operable to display said user created variables (Gilvert: para. 50; Platform is provided to track.); and
-said user schema instructions are executable to access said stored patient created variables to generate one of more graphical representations of said patient created variables (Gilvert: para. 50; Platform is provided to show tracking.).
As per claim 10, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein: said program instructions are executable on said processor to track an index of said conditions in said conditions page separate from said journaling page (Gilvert: para. 122; Dashboard providing current diagnosis, current problems, current medication, operations, etc.).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches wherein: said program instructions are executable to display a list of conditions that said patient can refer to with respect to a treatment plan and its effectiveness (T: para. 54-55; Display past history, treatment information, etc.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 12, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein: said executable program instructions generate one or more tables from a union of said conditions page and said journaling page to permit determining which of said conditions are improving (Gilvert: figure 12; para. 120; The downloaded app provides a dashboard to include care record and collected daily activity or food data and providing insights. para. 85; The data is stored in a relational database as a table having different fields and records.).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert does not explicitly teach the following, however, T teaches wherein:
-said conditions schema provides a ranking scale responsive to said patient to rank a treatment (T: para. 65; patient’s experience capture, analyzed, and modeled/quantified to determine success rate); and
-said program instructions utilizes said ranking scale to assist said patient to determine whether or not a new treatment plan is needed (T: para. 93; Interact with the system to help select the best treatment plan based on success rates.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 14, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein:
-said journaling schema comprise program instructions executable to cause said system to be responsive to said patient entering a description of the treatment plan to store and display said treatment plan (Gilvert: para. 85);
-said program instructions responsive to said patient entering one or more links to images and videos of said condition to store and display said images and videos (Gilvert: para. 51).
As per claim 15, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein: said system combines functionality from said journal schema, said conditions schemas, and said user schema to automatically produce graphical representations from said conditions schema (Gilvert: para. 89; Medical system transforms the data into a graphical format on a display screen.).
As per claim 16, the system of claim 1 is as described. Gilvert teaches wherein:
-said graphical representations include automatically generated graphs of patient consistency, of patient blood pressure, and of user selected variables (Gilvert: para. 128); and
-said processor provides a graphic user interface to visualize said graphical representations (Gilvert: para. 128; para. 89).
Claim 17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 18, the system of claim 16 is as described. Gilvert and T do not explicitly teach the following, however, Psynik teaches wherein: said user schema instructions executable by said processor utilize said data tracking database and said conditions database to track said patient consistency with said treatment plan and to automatically generate a graphical representation of said patient consistency (Psynik: para. 90; Providing a graphical representation of compliance data.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
Claim 19 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 4, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20, 22, 26 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 6, 8, 12, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 21 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 7, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 23-25 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 9-11, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 27-28 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 13-14, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 29 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 16, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As per claim 1, Applicant argues that T fails to teach a patient’s ranking on existing treatment, but utilizes success rates for a plurality of patients. Examiner disagrees. T teaches the patient providing before, during, and after the treatment for the treatment effectiveness and determining the success rate (para. 37).
As per claim 1, Applicant argues that T does not generate graphical representation for a patient, but rather previous patients. Examiner states that T teaches generation of a model based on health information of the patient on treatment of the diagnosed condition (para. 42; para. 51).
As per claim 1, Applicant argues that Psynik does not teach tracking patient consistency. Examiner states that while the interpretation of the term “consistency” is different for the Applicant, Examiner has examined the term in its broadest reasonable interpretation, which includes adherence i.e. compliance/consistency; therefore, Psynik teaches the limitation.
As per claim 7, Applicant argues that Gilvert fails to describe creation of any graphical representations of user created variables. Examiner disagrees. Gilvert teaches gathering multiple information, including mood diary, patient’s sleep, location, steps, etc., which is then converted to display in a graphical format (para. 50; para. 89).
As per claim 10, Applicant argues that Gilvert teach index of conditions. Examiner disagrees. Gilvert teaches a dashboard providing current diagnosis, current problems, current medication, operations, etc.. Applicant should provide a difference between index and dashboard showing a summary of patient’s medical information.
As per claim 11, Applicant argues that T does not teach display a list of conditions. Examiner disagrees. T teaches virtual space providing digital twin to query and retrive past history, predictions, etc. (para. 54).
As per claim 13, Applicant argues that T does not teach the limitations, specifically a ranking scale. Examiner states that T teaches patient’s experience capture, analyzed, and modeled/quantified to determine success rate (para. 65).
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment provide an inventive concept and solve a deficiency described in the specification (para. 2-4, 6); specifically filling a major gap in health care and patient treatment. The present invention solves the problem associated with providing summarized and organized graphs for treatment effectiveness visual, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bussmann et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2022/0319720 -- Teaches a system for managing a disease.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on 571-272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686