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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This non-FINAL office action is in response to the claims filed on February 12, 2026.
Claims 1, 17, 25, and 27-28 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 remain pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1-16 and 27 are drawn to a method, claims 17-26 are drawn to a system, and claims 28-30 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium and thus, are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1-30 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 17 and 28.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for monitoring a subject for reducing maternal mortality, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following a series of steps or instructions to monitor a patient’s health status).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
receiving, […], inputs from the subject for personal information for a plurality of types of information selected from the types of information comprising doctor appointments, physiologic parameters, mental health survey results, indicators of social instability, personally recorded expression, and mood, wherein mood is indicated by the subject selecting an emoji that represents their feelings or emotion;
storing, […], said personal information of said subject;
receiving, […], a data visualization dashboard, wherein said dashboard displays to said subject trends over time in said personal information […];
receiving, […], inputs from the subject regarding personal performance targets that are desired to be achieved in connection with trends in those types of personal information stored in said database;
assigning, […], an abnormality point value for any of a plurality of deviations from trends over time in said personal information […] and an abnormality point matrix, the abnormality point matrix being generated and continually updated […];
determining, […], a total abnormality point value of said trends for said subject […], based on the sum total of abnormality point values in real-time, wherein when the total abnormality point value of said trends for said subject exceeds a pre-selected point value an abnormality alert is generated;
notifying, […], said subject about the abnormality alert; and
providing, […], health information messaging to said subject, wherein said health information messaging is tailored to undo said abnormality in said trends of said subject; and
initiating appropriate mental health treatment for postpartum maternal mortality risk.
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 17, and 28 recite the following additional elements:
a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors,
a self-surveillance module
a database accessible by said application and accessible by said subject via said user interface of said application
a goal-setting module
a memory device accessible by the one or more computer processors
a machine learning module
one or more tangible computer readable media comprising instructions executed by the one or more processors (claims 17 and 28)
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 1, 17, and 28 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claims 1, 17, and 28 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claims 1, 17, and 28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements noted above to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 17, and 28 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-15, 18-25, 26-27 and 29-30 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 4-7, 9-11, 13, 19-25 and 27 do not recite further additional elements besides the ones mentioned in their respective independent claims.
Dependent claims 2-3, and 18 recite the following additional elements:
A mobile device (claims 2 & 18)
A wearable device (claim 3)
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it merely “generally links” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 2, 3, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Dependent claims 8 and 12 recite the following additional elements:
a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Dependent claims 14-16, 26 and 29 recites the following additional elements:
One or more computing devices in data communication with each other, each device having one or more computer processors, a data communication connection, and one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media accessible by the one or more computer processors (claims 14 and 29)
A plurality of databases including a personal information database and a health information database, wherein a personal information database and a health information messaging database are each stored in the one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media. (claims 14 and 29)
A resources database (claim 15, 16, and 26)
The noted above additional elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it merely “generally links” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 14-16, 26, and 29 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-16, 18-25 and 26-27, and 29-30 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 14-15, 17-18, 20-24, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, and further in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak.
Regarding claim 1, Francois teaches a method for treating a subject at risk for postpartum maternal mortality, comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving, via a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors, a self-surveillance module, wherein said self-surveillance module comprises inputs from the subject for personal information for a plurality of types of information selected from the types of information comprising physiologic parameters ([0008] discloses patients using a health tracking module to assess their condition by participating in evaluations of symptoms conducted via a computer or communication device. The evaluations consist of one or more questions regarding the symptoms of a condition as well as requests for relevant physiological data. [0457] discloses interacting with users via a GUI).
(b) storing, via the one or more computer processors, said personal information of said subject in a database accessible by said application, and accessible by said subject via said user interface of said application ([0018] discloses a data storage module that receives data obtained by data collection modules assigned to patients and stores the data according to its type in one or more databases);
(c) receiving, via said user interface of said application executing on one or more computer processors, a data visualization dashboard, wherein said dashboard displays to said subject trends over time in said personal information stored in said database ([0355] discloses one or more dashboards, the dashboard being a user interface that shows at least partly graphical or schematic presentation of the current status and/or trends of one or more parameters or indicators of the health of the patient);
(e) assigning, via the one or more computer processors, an abnormality point value for any of a plurality of deviations from trends over time in said personal information stored in said database ([0182] discloses identifying normal ranges, limits below which a value is considered to indicate a deterioration in the patient’s health, or limits above which a value is considered to indicate a deterioration in the patient’s health.) and an abnormality point matrix of said abnormality point values stored on a memory device accessible by the one or more computer processors, the abnormality point matrix being generated and continually updated by a machine learning module ([0187] discloses an algorithm that determines a patient’s health status embodied as a decision tree, inference engine, fuzzy logic, probabilistic models, neural networks, etc. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not defined in the disclosure what an abnormality point matrix entails and therefore, the Examiner interprets this as an algorithm that determines a condition based on input data.);
(f) determining, via the one or more computer processors, a total abnormality point value of said trends for said subject via the one or more computer processors, based on the sum total of abnormality point values in real-time, wherein when the total abnormality point value of said trends for said subject exceeds a pre-selected point value an abnormality alert is generated ([0183] discloses data elements of different types may be assigned weights according to their diagnostic value in terms of determining whether the patient is a sufficient risk for experiencing a deterioration. A combination of the values of the data elements and their weights maybe used to determine a score. The values of data elements may be absolute values, deviation from normal value, change from patient’s baseline, or combination thereof. [0266] discloses notifying the patient of the abnormal value);
(g) notifying, via said user interface, said subject about the abnormality alert ([0182] discloses the patient may be informed that the system detected an abnormal value and may be informed which value was abnormal);
(h) providing, via said user interface, health information messaging to said subject, wherein said health information messaging is tailored to undo said abnormality in said trends of said subject ([0266] discloses the detection of an abnormal value may trigger notifying the patient of the abnormal value and providing appropriate management directions); and
Francois does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Conward teaches:
comprising doctor appointments, mental health survey results, indicators of social instability, personally recorded expression, and mood ([0016] discloses data from surveys, patient expressions from image or video data, and social determinants of health data. [0020] discloses mood log. [0021] discloses tracking patient appointments).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the input data received in Francois to include a mental health survey results, appointments, and patient expressions as taught by Conward in order to evaluate and monitor patient health (Conward, [0002]).
Francois/Conward do not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Stevens teaches:
wherein mood is indicated by the subject selecting an emoji that represents their feelings or emotion ([0077] discloses a request that the user select an emoji reflective of their mood).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the mood logging of Conward to include a selecting an emoji as taught by Stevens in order to evaluate and monitor patient health more effectively.
Francois/Conward/Stevens do not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Line teaches:
(d) receiving, via a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors, a goal-setting module, wherein said goal-setting module comprises inputs from the subject regarding personal performance targets that are desired to be achieved in connection with trends in those types of personal information stored in said database ([0023] discloses a Personal Health record assistant that accommodates that user’s nutrition/fitness goals, wellness trending, etc. and accepts as input EMR data of the patient. [0058] discloses a questionnaire is provided to the patient to gauge the user’s personal health goals.);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the method of Francois to include a goal setting module as taught by Line in order to “provide decision support and health process automation for the patient in conjunction with the personalized plan of care for the patient” (Line, [0007]).
Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens do not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Ozen Irmak teaches:
(i) initiating appropriate mental health treatment for postpartum maternal mortality risk ([0006] discloses the subject is postpartum. [0007] discloses evaluating mental health status such as depression, anxiety, suicidality, etc. [0071] discloses providing a recommendation (behavioral intervention, seeking mental health council, or a treatment regimen.)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the method of Francois/Conward/Line to include initiating appropriate mental health treatment as taught by Ozen Imark in order to prevent maternal mortality.
Regarding claim 2, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches wherein said user interface is accessed by said subject on a mobile device ([0012] discloses an application for a mobile device for use by patients).
Regarding claim 3, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches wherein said user interface is accessed by said subject on a wearable device ([0130] discloses the mobile electronic device may be a wearable device such as a wristwatch, computer with head mounted display, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches wherein said health information messaging to said subject comprises one or more type of messaging including self-tracking reminders, doctor appointment reminders, alerts to notify a healthcare provider and de-stress providers ([0010] discloses patients receive a prompt to perform periodic evaluation of their condition, a schedule of upcoming procedures/appointments with health care providers and medication reminders).
Regarding claim 5, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 4. Conward further teaches wherein said health information messaging is triggered automatically in response to trends in said personal information of said subject that indicates increased postpartum maternal mortality risk ([0021] discloses providing alerts regarding patient risk. [0058] discloses mitigating risk of pregnancy morbidity).
Regarding claim 6, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches wherein said health information messaging is displayed on said user interface as a text alert to said subject (Figures 3I and 3J disclose health messaging notification sent to the user’s phone).
Regarding claim 7, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches wherein said health information messaging is displayed on said user interface as a representative symbol to said subject, wherein said symbol alerts said subject to availability of health information that is accessible via said user interface (Figure 3A discloses a user interface on mobile phone showing health stats, physicians, and modules as symbols. [0358] discloses a dashboard presenting information in a variety of ways, including graphics).
Regarding claim 10, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Conward further teaches wherein said self-surveillance module further comprises inputs from the subject for personal information for social support selected from the types of information comprising sleep deprivation ([0037] discloses collecting sleep data), absence of assistance with baby or other children ([0057] discloses social and community indicators cush as support), and mood-related symptoms ([0020] discloses patients logging their mood regularly), wherein said subject inputs measurements of personal stress on a predefined measurement scale presented to said subject via said user interface ([0020] discloses the patients complete health risk assessments tests such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Generalized Anxiety Test questionnaires, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois further teaches the method comprising the step of providing a system comprising: (i) one or more computing devices in data communication with each other, each device having one or more computer processors, a data communication connection ([0473] discloses one or more computing devices connected over a network), and one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media accessible by the one or more computer processors ([0126] discloses a non-transitory computer media), and (ii) a plurality of databases ([0018] discloses one or more databases), including a personal information database ([0081] discloses a patient record/a database for storing patient information) and a health information messaging database ([0164] discloses a database for storing information for customizing directions to the patient as part of the patient’s T-plan), wherein a personal information database and a health information messaging database are each stored in the one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media ([0018] discloses one or more databases are stored on a computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 15, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 14. Francois further teaches wherein the plurality of databases further comprises a resources database ([0422] discloses some use of the database include identifying utilization of medical resources).
Regarding claim 17, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach a system for monitoring and treating a subject at risk for postpartum maternal mortality, comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more tangible computer readable media accessible by the one or more computer processors, wherein the one or more tangible computer readable media comprise instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform (Francois [0126] discloses a non-transitory storage medium having computer instructions):
The remaining claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 2. As such, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 2.
Regarding claim 20,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 4. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 4.
Regarding claim 21,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 5. As such, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 5.
Regarding claim 22,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 6. As such, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 6.
Regarding claim 23,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 7. As such, claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 7.
Regarding claim 24,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 10. As such, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 10.
Regarding claim 27, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of claim 1. Ozen Imark further teaches wherein treating the subject at risk for postpartum maternal mortality comprises modifying a behavior of the subject ([0071] discloses providing the subject with recommendation such as behavioral intervention that comprise a set of behaviors of actions to help the subject to regain a better mental health status).
Regarding claim 28, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach a tangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer processor, cause the processor to (Francois [0126] discloses a non-transitory storage medium having computer instructions):
The remaining claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 1. As such, claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 14. As such, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 14.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, and further in view of Zides et al. (US 20100235295 A1), hereinafter Zides.
Regarding claim 8, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark do not teach the following limitations, however Zides teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of: (i) receiving, via a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors, messages indicating that said subject is within a predefined distance of a healthcare provider and providing information regarding how said subject can travel to said healthcare provider (0029] discloses the health portal may identify and display healthcare providers based on location of provider to select an appropriate provider. [0058] discloses a button providing directions to the healthcare provider)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the method of Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark to include determining a healthcare provider within a certain distance as taught by Zides in order to allow the user to more efficiently determine a healthcare provider and seek care.
Regarding claim 9, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark/Zides teach the method of Claim 8. Zides further teaches wherein said messages include geo-location information for said healthcare provider ([0031] discloses each of the provider recommendations discloses the provider’s location).
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 20120289790 A1), hereinafter Jain.
Regarding claim 11, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 10. Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark do not teach the following limitations; however, Jain teaches wherein said health information messaging comprises stress management strategies that respond to the trends in personal information for social support of said subject ([0074] discloses the mood sensor may provide therapeutic feedback to the user based on the analysis system determining the user is stressed. The variety of therapies include interventions, biofeedback, breathing exercises, muscle relaxation exercises, relaxing music, offering an exit strategy, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the health information messaging of Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark to include stress management strategies as taught by Jain in order to help the user manage stress and improve their health significantly (Jain [0004]).
Regarding claim 25,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 11. As such, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 11.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, in view of Zides et al. (US 20100235295 A1), hereinafter Zides, and further in view of Gunnarsson et al. (US 20180262584 A1), hereinafter Gunnarsson.
Regarding claim 12, Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark/Zides teach the method of Claim 8. Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen Imark/Zides do not teach the following limitation; however, Gunnarsson teaches wherein the method further comprises the step of:(j) receiving, via a user interface of an application executing on one or more computer processors, messages inviting said subject to join groups of other individuals using said application, wherein said groups are able to communicate amongst members of the group via the user interface ([0013] discloses a method of creating online support groups, selecting online support groups for users, and providing mechanism to allow the users to interact with the online support groups. [0014] discloses the online support group is for users of a wellness application. [0010] discloses user interfaces to allow the user to interact with the online support group).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the method of Francois/Conward/Stevens/Line/Ozen/Zides to include invitations to join support groups as taught by Gunnarsson in order to help the users attain their wellness goals (Gunnarsson [0013]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20200005946 A1), hereinafter Gupta.
Regarding claim 13, Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 1. Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark do not teach the following limitation; however, Gupta teaches the method further comprising the step of tracking over time, via the one or more computer processors and the total abnormality point values, the relative improvement or lack of improvement over time with respect to postpartum maternal mortality risk by said subject ([0013] discloses identifying expectant mothers prone to risk of complications that lead to maternal mortality. These mothers may be monitored and/or managed to reduce or eliminate the risks leading to mortality).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the method of Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark to include monitoring an improvement in the risk of maternal mortality as taught by Gupta in order to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes (Gupta [0013]).
Regarding claim 19,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 13. As such, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 13.
Claim(s) 16 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, and further in view of Lockhart et al. (US 20080299999 A1), hereinafter Lockhart.
Regarding claim 16, Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark teach the method of Claim 14. Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark may not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, Lockhart teaches wherein the resources database comprises multi-media information, wherein said multi-media information is accessible by said subject via said user interface ([0023] discloses an active resources directory accessible by a multimedia tool, and transmitting a multimedia message in a mobile device. Figure 6 shows the active resources directory includes multi-media information. [0086] discloses the active resources directory is a database).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the resources database of Francois to include multi-media information as taught by Lockhart in order to allow the user to more efficiently access their multi modal health information.
Regarding claim 26,
The claim limitations are analogous to the limitations in claim 16. As such, claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 16.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20170262604 A1), in view of Conward et al. (US 20240079145 A1), hereinafter Conward, in view of Stevens (US 20230008561 A1), hereinafter Stevens, in view of Line et al. (US 20110161095 A1), hereinafter Line, in view of Ozen Irmak et al. (US20220130518A1), hereinafter Ozen Irmak, and further in view of Phil (KR101592021B1), hereinafter Phil.
Regarding claim 30, Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark teaches the method of claim 1. Francois/Conward/Line/Stevens/Ozen Imark do not explicitly teach the following limitation; however, Phil teaches wherein said personal information includes postpartum stage ([0062] discloses healthcare information may include medical information according to the user’s state of health and the number of weeks…of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to be motivated to modify the personal health information of Francois to include postpartum stage as taught by Phil in order to collect accurate health information and more accurately calculate a mortality risk.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Zhang et al. (US 20210375468 A1) teaches: Using Electronic Health Records and Machine Learning to Predict and Mitigate Postpartum Depression.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objections to claim 25, the claim has been amended as per Examiner’s suggestions. As such, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection, claim 27 has been amended such that it is no longer a use claim. As such, the indefiniteness rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 101
Regarding the 101 rejection,
Applicant argues: “that the rejection is contrary to the guidance provided in the August 4, 2025 Memorandum by Deputy Commissioner for Patents Charles Kim. Page 3 of the memo addresses "[d]distinguishing claims that recite a judicial exception from claims that merely involve a judicial exception," noting that "claims that merely involve an exception...are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis" (emphases added). MPEP 2106.4 defines organizing human activity as "fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)." Applicant respectfully submits that the steps of the claims do not manage personal behavior of the subject but merely analyze the subject's physical and mental state and provide guidance to resources or treatment. Accordingly, while the claims involve a judicial exception, they do not recite the judicial exception, as alleged by the Examiner and the claims are therefore do not require further eligibility analysis, as set forth in the memo.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, specifically, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to analyze information regarding a person’s physical, mental, social, and emotional health, determining abnormalities, and suggesting and initiating treatment. Furthermore, the Examiner submits that healthcare itself inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointe dot anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to determine a mental health state for a postpartum patient and appropriate treatment, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. As evidenced by the identified abstract idea, the abstraction encompasses all of the data manipulation elements of the claim and the only remaining features of the claim (the additional elements) is/are general purpose computer or are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it”.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant has amended the claim to include “receiving … inputs from the subject for … mood, wherein mood is indicated by the user selecting an emoji that represents their feelings or emotion”. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17, and 28 have been considered but are moot because the Examiner has applied new art to teach the added limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687