DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to an application filed 6 September 2022, which is a continuation of an application with a filing date of 8 October 2020, which is a continuation in part of a chain of applications that claim priority to 26 December 2018. The Office notes that all of the claim language directed to an intelligence engine and the steps the intelligence engine performs is only supported by the application with the filing date of 8 October 2020.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: intelligence engine is configured to receive/discover/aggregate/communicate/modify in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 15 and 18 and recommended protocol being selected by the intelligence engine in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations intelligence engine is configured to receive/discover/aggregate/ communicate/modify in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 15 and 18 and recommended protocol being selected by the intelligence engine in claim 15 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder engine coupled with functional language configured to receive/discover/aggregate/communicate/modify in claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 15 and 18 and recommended protocol being selected by in claim 15 without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 15 and 18 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: claim 1 of the originally filed specification identifies the intelligence engine as being comprised of a computer system, i.e. hardware.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-20 are drawn to an intelligence engine, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 15 recite: An intelligence engine, comprising: a computing system in network communication with a plurality of user associated devices, wherein:
the intelligence engine is configured to receive user data from the plurality of user associated devices and generate recommendation data for individual users from the user data;
the recommendation data for each individual user among the individual users comprises a recommended protocol to be performed by the individual user, the recommended protocol being selected by the intelligence engine from among multiple known protocols;
the user data comprises outcomes from protocols previously recommended by the intelligence engine; and
the intelligence engine is configured discover associations between behaviors and outcomes and to modify the known protocols to optimize the known protocols for eliciting desired user outcomes.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the processing data to recommend protocols and optimize known protocols), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 include other limitations, for example claims 2-5, 10-14 and 16-18 includes further details on user data and protocol generation, 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. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and 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 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer, the network and the user devices, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs 52 and 53 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to patient user data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. 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 mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the user devices disclosed in claims 6-9, 19 and 20), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-5, 10-14 and 16-18), 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.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 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 structural components of the computer, the network and the user 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 insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 52 and 53 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 15, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception(e.g. the user devices disclosed in claims 6-9, 19 and 20), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 2-5, 10-14 and 16-18), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and/or 2) as being anticipated or clearly anticipated by Jacobson et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2010/0057655 A1), hereinafter Jacobson.
As per claims 1 and 15, Jacobson discloses An intelligence engine (Jacobson, see Figs. 1 and 5.), comprising:
a computing system in network communication with a plurality of user associated devices (Jacobson shows a plurality of magnetic resonance (“MR”) devices #102 connected to client computers #108, herein user associated devices, connected to a plurality of computers #s128 and 132.), wherein:
the intelligence engine is configured to receive user data from the plurality of user associated devices and generate recommendation data for individual users from the user data (MR Application #134, herein intelligence engine, executes on MR System Server #132 receives and stores aggregated subject and device data received from MR devices #102 and Client Computers #108, see Jacobson Fig. 1 and paragraph 78. Data is utilized to make recommendation data for individual users, see paragraph 77-79 and Fig. 5.);
the recommendation data for each individual user among the individual users comprises a recommended protocol to be performed by the individual user, the recommended protocol being selected by the intelligence engine from among multiple known protocols (System generates recommended protocols based on analysis of previously used protocols stored on MR database, see Jacobson Fig. 5 #s 404-406.);
the user data comprises outcomes from protocols previously recommended by the intelligence engine (Treatment outcome data is stored in client computer and transmitted to MR System, see Jacobson paragraphs 147 and Fig. 5 #s 420-422.); and
the intelligence engine is configured discover associations between behaviors and outcomes and to modify the known protocols to optimize the known protocols for eliciting desired user outcomes (System is operative to generate treatment protocols for future treatments based on analysis of outcomes and treatments/patient data, herein behaviors, see Jacobson paragraphs 147 and Fig. 5 #s 420-422. System is also operative to adjust treatments based on monitored user data, herein intermediate outcomes, for a given treatment, herein behaviors, see paragraphs 142-143 and Fig. 5 #414.); and
15. biometric data (Jacobson utilizes biometric data, see Figs. 3, 7 and 8.).
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitations are interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
1. for eliciting desired user outcomes; and
15. for inducing an intended physiological state.
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitation, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 2-5, 10-14 and 16-18, Jacobson discloses claims 1 and 15, discussed above. Jacobson also discloses:
2. wherein the user data comprises demographic data of the individual users (Jacobson, user data includes demographic data, see paragraph 41 and 55.);
3. being configured to aggregate the demographic data within segmented populations and to discover at least some of the associations between behaviors and outcomes from the aggregated demographic data (Jacobson discloses processing aggregated demographic data, treatment protocols used, herein behaviors and responses to treatments, see paragraph 55, in order to discover associations for generating recommended future treatments, see Fig. 5 #s420-422. Jacobson discloses segmenting populations, such as selecting protocols based on similar demographics, see Fig. 6 and corresponding text.);
4. being configured to aggregate the demographic data within segmented populations and, for each individual user among the individual users, to generate the recommendation data at least partially by prioritizing protocols among the multiple known protocols for recommendation to the individual user from demographic data associated with the individual user (Jacobson discloses processing aggregated demographic data, treatment protocols used, herein behaviors and responses to treatments, see paragraph 55, in order to discover associations for generating recommended future treatments, see Fig. 5 #s420-422. Jacobson discloses segmenting populations, such as selecting protocols based on similar demographics, see Fig. 6 and corresponding text. System presents a plurality of protocols prioritized by various factors, such as % positive feedback and/or % match, see Table 3 on page 17.);
5. wherein the demographic data includes user activity levels (Jacobson discloses wherein user data includes lifestyle data and medical history, both of which would encompass activity levels, see paragraphs 41, 55 and 73.);
10. configured to optimize the known protocols for eliciting desired user outcomes by assigning behavior scores to the outcomes from protocols previously recommended by the intelligence engine and modifying the previously recommended protocols in a manner expected to lead to different behavior scores in view of the discovered associations (Jacobson discloses assigning probabilities, herein behavior scores, for previous outcomes based on analyzed data in order to determine more successful future recommendations; see paragraph 156: “For example, there may be a clear correlation between an indication such as Parkinson's disease, and the data captured by a sensor, such as the rate of tremors measured by a haptics glove sensor. Probabilistic calculations involve the correlation between the data and a given outcome. Probabilistic determinations may require an analysis of several possible outcomes and an assignment of probabilities for those outcomes, as for example, determining possible MR treatment protocols based on the subject data 114 and aggregate subject data 142. As the amount of analyzed aggregate subject data 142 grows, the recommended possible MR treatments may become more accurate based on data patterns and successful treatment outcomes for various illnesses.”);
11,16. wherein the desired user outcomes include a biometric falling within a predetermined range (Jacobson discloses making adjustments to treatments in order to keep a biometric under a predetermined threshold, see paragraph 142 and Fig. 7.);
12,17. wherein the biometric is heart rate (Jacobson discloses collecting heart rate measurements, see paragraphs 99, 117 and 142.);
13. configured to generate a unique routine for a particular user among the individual users (Jacobson is operative to generate treatment adjustments, see Fig. 5 #414.); and
14,18. configured to modify the known protocols to optimize the known protocols for eliciting desired user outcomes by changing steps within the known protocols (Jacobson is operative to generate treatment adjustments, see Fig. 5 #414.).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jacobson further in view of Chee et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2016/0127129 A1), hereinafter Chee.
As per claims 6-9, 19 and 20, Jacobson discloses claims 1 and 15, discussed above. Jacobson also discloses:
6,19. wherein the user associated devices include MR devices (Jacobson, see Fig. 2.);
7,20. wherein the multiple known protocols include a protocol for using an MR device (Jacobson, see Figs. 5 and 6.);
8. wherein the user associated devices include MR devices (Jacobson, see Fig. 2.); and
9. wherein the intelligence engine is configured to communicate the recommendation data for each individual user among the individual users to a an MR operator (Jacobson, see Fig. 6 #512.).
Jacobson fails to explicitly disclose:
6,19. wearable biometric devices; and
7-9,20. a percussive massage device.
Chee teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize programmable wearable biometric devices and a percussive massage device (Chee discloses various programmable percussive massage devices, such as a wearable belt or massage chair, see paragraphs 18-20.) in order to provide more devices for providing healthcare treatments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the healthcare protocol generation system of Jacobson to include use of programmable wearable biometric devices and a percussive massage device, as taught by Chee, in order to arrive at a healthcare protocol generation system that can provide more devices for providing healthcare treatments.
Both Jacobson and Chee are directed to the electronic processing of treatment protocol data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Conclusion
Cited but unused art Eleftherou et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2019/0348178) discloses treatment protocol generation.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
27 March 2026
Prosecution Insights