DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) submitted October 9, 2025. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are amended. Claims 9 – 10 and 19 – 20 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 – 24 are presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 11 is withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 9, 2025.
The objection to Claim 21 is withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 9, 2025..
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 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 – 24 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 One
Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 – 24 are drawn to a method and a system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite dynamic activity sequence generation for a user, comprising: determining a probability distribution that represents, for each of a plurality of different activities, an estimated conditional probability of the user completing the corresponding activity, wherein each estimated conditional probability is based on demographic data about the user and a historical user engagement function that defines a relation between past outcomes of the user being presented with different sequences of the activities and the corresponding estimated conditional probability; defining an engagement value function that represents, for each of the plurality of different activities, a corresponding numerical value assigned to the user of completing the activity, wherein each assigned numerical value is based on the demographic data about the user and a historical activity completion function that defines a relation between past completed activities of the user and the corresponding assigned numerical value; computing, for each of a plurality of possible activity sequences, a total expected value for the user of being presented the corresponding activity sequence, wherein individual activities included within a possible activity sequence are associated with a corresponding expected value to the user that is computed based on the probability distribution and the engagement value function, wherein each total expected value is computed as an aggregate sum of expected values associated with the individual activities included within the possible activity sequence; wherein each of the plurality of possible activity sequences corresponds to a path through a directed acyclic graph comprising a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein each node is associated with one or more activities and each edge defines a relationship between activities at connected nodes; generating, from among the plurality of possible activity sequences, a recommended sequence of activities that is determined to provide the greatest total expected value for the user; identifying a first subset of activities from the recommended sequence of activities; identifying a second subset of activities from the recommended sequence of activities; transmitting the first subset of activities to a user; determining a completion state of a first activity; generating a modified activity based on a second activity, wherein the second activity is modified based on the completion state of the first activity; removing the second activity; adding the modified activity; transmitting an indication of the modified activity to the user; receiving a second completion state of the modified activity; and modifying one or more activities using the second completion state, wherein the first subset of activities comprises activities that are different from activities in the second subset activities, and wherein the first subset of activities comprises activities that are earlier in the recommended sequence of activities than the second subset of activities.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the disclosure “relates generally to digital content delivery, and, in particular, to the use of machine-learning techniques for dynamically generating and presenting personalized health and wellness content to a user of a device via a user application” (paragraph 2 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “demand for improved health and well-being, such as physical fitness, management of medical conditions, general lifestyle, and other areas of life” (paragraph 3 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “user activity window”, “orchestration window”, “user device to cause presentation of the modified activity to the user via the application on the user device”, “wherein the plurality of possible activity sequences is constrained by at least one of a size of a user activity window or a size of an orchestration window”, “wherein a maximum path length is strained by at least one of the size of the user activity window or the size of the orchestration window”
Claim 8: “user activity window”, “orchestration window”
Claim 11: “server-implemented system”, “model builder configured to generate a probability distribution and an engagement value function”, “a next best engagement (NBE) engine in electronic communication with the model builder…. Application programming interface configured for communicating between the system and a user device of the user”, “wherein the plurality of possible activity sequences is constrained by at least one of a size of a user activity window or a size of an orchestration window”, “wherein a maximum path length is strained by at least one of the size of the user activity window or the size of the orchestration window”, “device for display to the user via an application operating on the user device”, “user activity window”, “orchestration window”, “device to cause presentation of the modified activity to the user via the application on the user device”
Claims 12 – 13: “system”, “NBE engine”
Claims 14 – 15, 17: “system”, “model builder”
Claim 16: “system”
Claim 18: “system”, “user activity window”, “orchestration window”
Claim 21: “output generated by a telemetric device configured to capture biometric data”
Claim 22: “orchestration window”
Claim 23: “system”, “output generated by a telemetric device configured to capture biometric data”
Claim 24: “system”, “orchestration window”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0103] As shown, data processing layer 305 in system 300 may for example include a start/recalculate program module 320 in communication with backend function(s) 310, which can for example include health program authoring and other content generation as described herein. Start/recalculate program module 320 may further communicate with a healthcare application program interface (API) 325 that exposes data processing layer 305 to mobile/web application 315, which can be installed on a user device, such as a mobile phone, tablet, portable or desktop computer, or smart watch as well as others, for example. Information and data exchange between healthcare API 325 and mobile/web application 315 may be bilateral, i.e., mobile/web application 315 may both provide to and receive data from data processing layer 305 through healthcare API 325.
[0113] In some cases, host server 405 may be or include any local or on-premises computer system configured with hardware and/or software resources that allow local or remote access by client systems 415. Alternatively, host server 405 may instead be implemented on a distributed or cloud-based environment, such as Google™ Cloud Services, Amazon™ Web Service, or Microsoft™ Azure™ Cloud Computing Platform, which may be located remotely at one or more third party data centres. A cloud-based implementation of host server 405 may advantageously facilitate scalability in respect of storage memory or computational requirements compared to a self-hosted alternative.
[0116] In some cases, data warehouses 420,425 may be or include any local or on-premises computer system that is network-enabled or otherwise in communication with host server 405. Alternatively, either or both of data warehouses 420, 425 may also be implemented on a distributed or cloud-based environment, such as Google™ Cloud Services, Amazon™ Web Service, or Microsoft™ Azure™ Cloud Computing Platform, which may be located remotely at one or more third party data centres.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2- 8, 12 – 18, and 21 – 24 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claim(s) 1 – 8, 11 – 18, and 21 – 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., herein after Chang (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0314805 A1) in view of Knox (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0364588 A1) further in view of Catani et al., herein after Catani (U.S. Patent Number 10,614,724 B2) are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 9, 2025, particularly the amended limitation “wherein the plurality of possible activity sequences is constrained by at least one of a size of a user activity window or a size of an orchestration window, and wherein each of the plurality of possible activity sequences corresponds to a path through a directed acyclic graph comprising a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein each node is associated with one or more activities and each edge defines a relationship between activities at connected nodes, and wherein a maximum path length is strained by at least one of the size of the user activity window or the size of the orchestration window”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues the amended claims cannot be reasonably classified as reciting a method of organizing human activity. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP 2106/04(a)(2) recites that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of determining activity sequences using a user activity window and an orchestration window. The present claims recite dynamic activity sequence generation for a user, comprising: determining a probability distribution that represents, for each of a plurality of different activities, an estimated conditional probability of the user completing the corresponding activity, wherein each estimated conditional probability is based on demographic data about the user and a historical user engagement function that defines a relation between past outcomes of the user being presented with different sequences of the activities and the corresponding estimated conditional probability; defining an engagement value function that represents, for each of the plurality of different activities, a corresponding numerical value assigned to the user of completing the activity, wherein each assigned numerical value is based on the demographic data about the user and a historical activity completion function that defines a relation between past completed activities of the user and the corresponding assigned numerical value; computing, for each of a plurality of possible activity sequences, a total expected value for the user of being presented the corresponding activity sequence, wherein individual activities included within a possible activity sequence are associated with a corresponding expected value to the user that is computed based on the probability distribution and the engagement value function, wherein each total expected value is computed as an aggregate sum of expected values associated with the individual activities included within the possible activity sequence; wherein each of the plurality of possible activity sequences corresponds to a path through a directed acyclic graph comprising a plurality of nodes and edges, wherein each node is associated with one or more activities and each edge defines a relationship between activities at connected nodes; generating, from among the plurality of possible activity sequences, a recommended sequence of activities that is determined to provide the greatest total expected value for the user; identifying a first subset of activities from the recommended sequence of activities; identifying a second subset of activities from the recommended sequence of activities; transmitting the first subset of activities to a user; determining a completion state of a first activity; generating a modified activity based on a second activity, wherein the second activity is modified based on the completion state of the first activity; removing the second activity; adding the modified activity; transmitting an indication of the modified activity to the user; receiving a second completion state of the modified activity; and modifying one or more activities using the second completion state, wherein the first subset of activities comprises activities that are different from activities in the second subset activities, and wherein the first subset of activities comprises activities that are earlier in the recommended sequence of activities than the second subset of activities. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” by “dynamically generating and presenting personalized health and wellness content to a user of a device via a user application” (paragraph 2 of the published specification). Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues the amended claims integrate the claims into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues the amended claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea alleged in the Office Action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s specification states “Embodiments of the present invention have been described above with reference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods, apparatuses, systems and computer program products. It will be understood that each block of the circuit diagrams and process flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the circuit diagrams and process flowcharts, respectively, can be implemented by various means including computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the computer program product includes the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus create a means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.” (paragraph 92 of the published specification). The generic computer cited by the Applicant is a general link to execute the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
KRISTINE K. RAPILLO
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/KRISTINE K RAPILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682