CTNF 17/983,740 CTNF 87298 DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 17/983,740 filed on 11/09/2022. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Application 17/983,740 filed 11/09/2022 claims foreign priority to 2022-013730, filed 01/31/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 11/09/2022, 08/25/2023, and 11/10/2025 have been acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) : (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA 6. Claim s 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 7. Claim 1 recites “outputting the specified menu to the stakeholder of the calculated combination.” The phrase “the calculated combination” lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to be indefinite for the reasons provided above. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. 8. Claim 2 recites the limitation “calculating the change frequency for each of the stakeholders for the menu that has the change point, and the processing of specifying includes specifying a combination of the stakeholders with the low change frequency to the menu...” The term “low” as recited in this context is a relative term. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite. Moreover, the terms “ each of the stakeholders ,” “ the stakeholders ,” and “ the low change frequency ” lack antecedent basis, also rendering the claim indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a stakeholder”, claims 1/2 do not introduce “stakeholders” (plural). Appropriate correction is required. 9. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the stakeholders,” which lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a stakeholder”, claims 1/2/3/4 do not introduce “stakeholders” (plural). Appropriate correction is required. 10. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the stakeholders,” which lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “a stakeholder”, claims 1/2/3/4/6 do not introduce “stakeholders” (plural). Appropriate correction is required. 11. Claim 7 recites “wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the low change frequency that uses the change frequency of the provider for the menu as a constraint condition, in a case where the change frequency of the provider for the menu is low .” The term “low” as recited in this context is a relative term. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite. Moreover, the term “ the low change frequency ” lacks antecedent basis, also rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Appropriate correction is required. 12. Claim 8 recites “The computer-implemented method according to claim 6, wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the distribution of the expected value of the user for the menu as a constraint condition.” The phrase “the expected value” lacks antecedent basis, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. While claim 3 introduces “expected values” (plural), claims 3/8 do not introduce “an expected value” (singular). Appropriate correction is required. 13. Claim 9 recites “wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting the combination of the menus with the low change frequency to the user.” The term “low” as recited in this context is a relative term. Thus, rendering the claim indefinite. Moreover, the term “ the low change frequency ” lacks antecedent basis, also rendering the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Appropriate correction is required. 14. Claim 10 recites “ The computer-implemented method according to claim 7, wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user with the change frequency as a constraint condition.” The phrase “the each user” lacks antecedent basis and is grammatically unclear. It is ambiguous whether it refers to a specific user previously introduced in claim 7, all users collectively, or other user, therefore rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required. 15. All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 16. 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. 17. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . 18. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106 . With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106 ), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-11) and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 12) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-12 is satisfied. With respect to Step 2A Prong One , it is next noted that the claims recite abstract ideas that fall into the (1) “ Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity ” by setting forth steps for managing interactions between people including by following rules or instructions, as set forth in the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. More specifically, the claim is directed to recommending a menu to a stakeholder. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: acquiring information of a menu of a predetermined service and information of a stakeholder related to the service; calculating a change frequency of execution of the menu for a combination of the stakeholder and the menu; specifying a menu to be recommended on the basis of the calculated change frequency; and outputting the specified menu to the stakeholder of the calculated combination . These steps encompass organizing human activity by reciting steps for managing interactions between people including by following rules or instructions. The steps focus on planning and guiding human decision, specifically, recommending menu to stakeholder based on their behavior patterns. Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. With respect to Step 2A Prong Two , the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . With respect to independent claim 1, it is noted that the claim does not recite additional elements (i.e., claim 1 is a method that recites several disembodied steps). Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. With respect to independent claim 12, the additional elements are: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a planning program for causing a computer to execute processing. These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Even if the acquiring and outputting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry , it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . With respect to independent claim 1, it is noted that the claim does not recite additional elements (i.e., claim 1 is a method that recites several disembodied steps). Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by independent claim 1 fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claim 12, the additional elements are: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a planning program for causing a computer to execute processing (claim 12). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic computing devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (See, e.g., Spec. at paragraph 0078). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.). Even if the acquiring and outputting steps are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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). In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-11 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-11 recite “wherein the processing of acquiring includes acquiring plan data that plans menu execution of the service and achievement data obtained by actually executing the menu of the plan data, the processing of calculating includes extracting a change point of presence or absence of the menu execution on the basis of a difference between the acquired plan data and the acquired achievement data, and calculating the change frequency for each of the stakeholders for the menu that has the change point, and the processing of specifying includes specifying a combination of the stakeholders with the low change frequency to the menu,” “wherein the processing of calculating the change frequency is calculated on the basis of an overlap of distributions of parameters that include a time, a location, an effect, and a difficulty level that indicate expected values regarding implementation of the menu for each of the stakeholders,” “wherein the processing of specifying includes combining the stakeholders each other that have similar distributions of the expected values,” “wherein the processing of specifying includes obtaining a workflow that combines a plurality of menus on the basis of the distributions of the expected values for each plurality of menus,” “wherein the stakeholders include a planner who plans the menu of the service, a provider who provides the service, and a user who uses the service, and the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user with similar distributions of the expected values,” “wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the low change frequency that uses the change frequency of the provider for the menu as a constraint condition, in a case where the change frequency of the provider for the menu is low,” “wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the distribution of the expected value of the user for the menu as a constraint condition,” “wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting the combination of the menus with the low change frequency to the user,” “wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user with the change frequency as a constraint condition,” “wherein the processing of displaying and outputting includes information of the change frequency for the each menu” however these limitations are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For more information, see MPEP 2106. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 19. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 20. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 21. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 23. Claim s 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0374576 A1, [hereinafter Dettinger], in view of Wong et al., Pub. No.: US 2011/0145747 A1, [hereinafter Wong] . As per claim 1 , Dettinger teaches a computer-implemented method of performing planning processing, the method comprising (paragraph 0002: “ techniques related to health care, and more specifically, for administering an individualized care plan for a patient): acquiring information of a menu of a predetermined service and information of a stakeholder related to the service (paragraph 0003, discussing that in the health care field, a care plan is a set of tasks provided by a health care practitioner to a patient. Historically, care plans are a written document that provides directions and routines for a patient to follow to manage certain health conditions. The care plan may include a set of tasks for the patient to perform, content that educates the patient about a diagnosed condition, and logs for the patient to periodically record information in. As an example, a doctor might create a care plan for a patient with hypertension that includes several brochures describing hypertension and hypertension treatment and assigned tasks such as walking on a treadmill for thirty minutes each morning, drinking a glass of water every three hours, and recording blood pressure at the end of each day. Thus, as part of the treatment of the condition, the patient is expected to adhere to the tasks listed in the care plan; paragraph 0005, discussing a method for administering a care plan. The method includes receiving the care plan specifying a plurality of observation metrics to monitor biometric data collected from a patient…; paragraph 0057, discussing that the inventory management component maintains a store of sensor device configurations for patients registered with the care environment. The inventory management component a ssociates the patient care application with the sensor devices. Further, the inventory management component also associates a generated care plan with the patient care application and sensor devices. Doing so ensures that the plan generation componen t sends a generated care plan to the correct mobile device as well as configures the patient care application and sensor devices of the patient with the relevant threshold information. Once configured, the patient care application allows the patient to begin adhering to the individualized care plan; paragraph 0104, discussing techniques for generating a health care plan that may be customized for an individual. Advantageously, the care plans that the care platform generates may be tailored to a specific individual. Doing so allows a care provider to provide a more detailed and effective approach to treating a patient's condition than a care plan that consists of generalized tasks); calculating a change frequency of execution of the menu for a combination of the stakeholder and the menu (paragraph 0045, discussing that the patient care application may display information related to the care plan, such as phases, tasks, and other information about conditions targeted for treatment by the care plan. When the patient performs a task, the patient records progress in the patient care application. The patient care application relays this information to the care plan management application. Doing so allows the care provider to monitor adherence to the care plan. Further, depending on how the patient responds to the care plan, the care plan management application may adjust certain tasks. For example, the patient could be assigned the task of reading particular educational content every morning as part of the administration of the care plan. If the care plan management application then detects that the patient is infrequently completing the assigned task [i.e., a change frequency of execution], the care plan management application could alter the care plan to provide the educational content through a different medium. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the care plan such that the patient is assigned to watch an educational video on the same topic as the written educational content, using the mobile device once per week. Doing so allows the care plan to be adjusted to suit the individual preferences of the patient, while helping to ensure that the patient completes the assigned tasks laid out in the care plan; paragraph 0049, discussing that the care plan management application could continue to monitor the patient's adherence to the assigned task and, upon determining that the patient's adherence is sufficiently low (e.g., below a threshold amount of adherence), the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan in an attempt to boost the patient's adherence to the assigned task. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the schedule at which the prescribed tasks are to be performed, e.g., altering the day of the week on which the task is to be performed, altering the duration of the task, increasing the window of time during which the patient can complete the task and be considered on time, and so on; paragraph 0104, discussing that because the care plan may be tied to mobile and sensor devices of the patient, the care platform may monitor the progress of the patient's adherence to the care plan, allowing for further customization of the care plan as necessary); specifying a menu to be recommended on the basis of the calculated change frequency (paragraph 0045, discussing that the patient care application may display information related to the care plan, such as phases, tasks, and other information about conditions targeted for treatment by the care plan…If the care plan management application then detects that the patient is infrequently completing the assigned task , the care plan management application could alter the care plan to provide the educational content through a different medium. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the care plan such that the patient is assigned to watch an educational video on the same topic as the written educational content, using the mobile device once per week. Doing so allows the care plan to be adjusted to suit the individual preferences of the patient, while helping to ensure that the patient completes the assigned tasks laid out in the care plan; paragraph 0049, discussing that upon determining that the patient's adherence is sufficiently low (e.g., below a threshold amount of adherence), the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan in an attempt to boost the patient's adherence to the assigned task); and outputting the specified menu to the stakeholder of the calculated combination (paragraph 0029, discussing that the care platform can transmit the care plan to the application deployed on the mobile device. Through the device, the patient may access the care plan and understand the tasks to perform. Moreover, information can be provided to the patient through the mobile device as part of the administration of the care plan. For example, such information can be provided via a display device of the mobile device, through one or more speaker devices of the mobile device, other input/output devices of the mobile device or some combination thereof. Examples of such information includes alerts (e.g., provided responsive to a monitored metric exceeding a threshold value), reminders (e.g., when a patient fails to perform an assigned task within a specified window of time), educational content, and so on. Further, the mobile device may receive information from various sensors that monitor patient activity. The application can record the information to the care plan and relay information to the care platform. As a result, the physician can monitor the patient's adherence to the care plan; paragraph 0045, discussing that the patient care application may display information related to the care plan, such as phases, tasks, and other information about conditions targeted for treatment by the care plan…; paragraph 0050, discussing that the care plan management application is configured to adjust the assigned task based on the patient's level of adherence to the assigned task. For instance, if the care plan management application detects that the patient is poorly adhering to the assigned task of reading a weekly continuing educational article related to a condition the patient is diagnosed with, the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan to assign a different task to the patient to attempt to improve the patient's adherence. For example, the care plan management application could remove the task of reading a weekly article from the patient's care plan and could replace the task with a new task of watching a weekly educational video on an aspect of the diagnosed condition, e.g., using the mobile device. The care plan management application could continue monitoring the patient's adherence to the newly assigned task and could make further changes to the patient's care plan in the event the patient's adherence continues to suffer; paragraph 0057). While Dettinger teaches a change frequency of execution , it does not explicitly teach calculating a change frequency of execution of the menu for a combination of the stakeholder and the menu . However, Wong in the analogous art of planning system teaches these concepts. Wong teaches: calculating a change frequency of execution of the menu for a combination of the stakeholder and the menu (paragraph 0005, discussing that the method comprises providing a structured collection procedure and program instructions, and executing the program instructions on a device which cause a processor of the device to: personalize the structured collection procedure by requesting goals from the individual to define for events to be accomplished in the structured collection procedure one or more adherence criteria that the processor uses to determine whether each event was accomplished successfully and to define an exit criterion for ending the structured collection procedure;…; provide intervention according to the intervention preferences when the one or more adherence criteria for one of the events is not met; paragraph 0006, discussing monitoring compliancy of the individual with the events by assessing whether the one or more adherence criteria have been met by the individual when performing each one of the events...In another embodiment, where the indication is present, then the program instructions further cause the processor to query the individual as to whether the individual believes the procedure is working, whether the individual is following the intervention...In another embodiment, wherein the program instruction further cause the processor to perform a health and behavior support assessment in order to work through the process of providing a new personalized collection procedure if the collection procedure is indicated as not working, to request again the intervention preferences from the individual if the individual indicates that the intervention is not being followed...; paragraph 0009, discussing that the adherence criterion is calculated based on the data related to the behavior of the user... In another embodiment, at least one of the acceptance criterion and the adherence criterion is calculated based on a number of data points…In another embodiment, the program instructions further cause the processor to present recommended actions and to require active confirmation by the individual for each of the recommended actions. In another embodiment, the device further comprises a user interface in communication with the processor and the active confirmation by the individual is via the user interface…; paragraph 0042, discussing that the term "adherence criteria" can include adherence and can also mean a basis for comparison (e.g., assessment) of a measured value, a value related to a measured value and/or a calculated value with a defined value or defined range of the value... ; paragraph 0088, discussing that examples of the exit criteria can be based on the processor determining that a particular value is reached,…, that a particular event(s) and/or condition(s) have or have not occurred, and combinations thereof…Exit criteria can also include, for example, criteria for ending such as exiting after an indeterminate completion, such as expiration of a predetermined timeout, e.g., no result after n days, where n=1 to 365 days...It is to be appreciated that the structured collection procedure can also be defined to end when the individua fails to perform a request to an acceptable level of compliance, thereby failing adherence criteria; paragraph 0163, discussing that the clinician, can decide and set how many adherence violations are allowed; paragraph 0175, discussing that the individual can be given feedback on the extent of his or her adherence to the collection procedure. In this alternative embodiment if the adherence criteria is not met, then a violation counter is incremented; paragraph 0177, discussing that the number of violations (i.e., violation counter) is checked to see if it exceeds a maximum number of violations permitted (i.e., violation number (VN)) . The violation number (VN(s)) can be preset in the collection procedure and adjusted by the clinician (and/or individual if permitted) as desired…In still other embodiments, the violation number could represent the number of violations in a pre-defined period of time instead of an absolute number since the start of the collection procedure. For example, the pre-defined period time could be designed and adjusted by the clinician in the collection procedure by a time parameter (t). For example, in one embodiment the processor would also check to see whether the violation counter exceeded the violation number within the associated pre-defined period (t)...In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 9, if the violation number (VN) is exceeded, i.e. the violation counter "Violations" is greater than the violation number (VN), then a failed message is provided...The failed message can be provided on the display of the device and/or to the clinician via a communication interface; paragraph 0182, discussing that still other suggestions can ask the individual to make assessments as to whether the violation is a recurring pattern, or a singular data point attributed to a particular acute issues, such e.g., the individual is on vacation and therefore explainable, or chronic where nothing has changed, thereby possibly indicating that something physiological or medicinally has changed, and therefore a change may be needed before continuing; paragraph 0193, discussing that he device or computer running the personalized procedure monitors compliancy of the individual with the plan of action…; paragraphs 0041, 0176). Examiner notes that Wong, in addition to Dettinger as cited above, also teaches: outputting the specified menu to the stakeholder of the calculated combination (paragraph 0009, discussing that the adherence criterion is calculated based on the data related to the behavior of the user... In another embodiment, at least one of the acceptance criterion and the adherence criterion is calculated based on a number of data points…In another embodiment, the program instructions further cause the processor to present recommended actions and to require active confirmation by the individual for each of the recommended actions. In another embodiment, the device further comprises a user interface in communication with the processor and the active confirmation by the individual is via the user interface…; paragraph 0090, discussing that the result of steps 208-214 is the structured collection procedure being created which associates together the use case parameter, the schedule of events, the adherence criteria4, the entry criteria, the exit criteria, guidance, and the options. In one embodiment, at the time of generating a collection procedure the clinician also generates printed material that explains to the individual the following aspects (at a minimum): the purpose of the collection procedure and expected ideal outcome, i.e., setting a goal for the collection procedure; the collection procedure design and the number of measurements needed...Such printed material as well as the guidance that can be provided during the execution of the collection procedure ensures that the individual is fully aware of why the data collection procedure is being carried out; paragraph 0105, discussing that other examples of further actions in which the processor may take in response to an adherence event may be to dynamically change the structured collection procedure by switch to a secondary schedule of event, which may be easier for the individual to perform, provide additional events for measurements to make up the missing data, change the exit criteria from a primary to a secondary exit criterion providing modified criterion(s), change the adherence criteria from a primary to a secondary adherence criterion,…, send a message to a particular person, such as a clinician, of the failing event... In still another embodiments, the adherence criteria can be dynamically assessed...If the calculated adherence value is not useful, for example, does not fall into a desired range or meet a certain pre-define value, then further processing as defined by the resulting adherence event would then take place; paragraph 0181, discussing that the device can permit an individual who is having problems with testing at the correct time, to opt into a version of the procedure that provides more prompting with the upcoming test...; paragraphs 0121, 0172, 0185, 0192, 0196, 0204). Dettinger is directed towards techniques related to health care, and more specifically, for administering an individualized care plan for a patient. Wong is directed towards a behavior modification program facilitated through a structured tailoring method and system which provides help when the individual begins to fail in adhering or continuing with the behavior modification. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dettinger with Wong because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger to include Wong‘s feature for including calculating a change frequency of execution of the menu for a combination of the stakeholder and the menu, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing structured tailoring in order to help improve the success of an individual changing and maintaining health related behavior by individualizing behavior change action plans (Wong, paragraph 0186); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . 07-21-aia AIA 24. Claim s 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger in view of Wong, in further view of Kumar et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0091421 A1, [hereinafter Kumar] . As per claim 2 , the Dettinger-Wong combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 . Dettinger further teaches wherein the processing of acquiring includes acquiring plan data that plans menu execution of the service and achievement data obtained by actually executing the menu of the plan data (paragraph 0003, discussing that in the health care field, a care plan is a set of tasks provided by a health care practitioner to a patient. Historically, care plans are a written document that provides directions and routines for a patient to follow to manage certain health conditions. The care plan may include a set of tasks for the patient to perform,…, and logs for the patient to periodically record information in. As an example, a doctor might create a care plan for a patient with hypertension that includes several brochures describing hypertension and hypertension treatment and assigned tasks such as walking on a treadmill for thirty minutes each morning, drinking a glass of water every three hours, and recording blood pressure at the end of each day. Thus, as part of the treatment of the condition, the patient is expected to adhere to the tasks listed in the care plan; paragraph 0005, discussing that the method includes receiving the care plan specifying a plurality of observation metrics to monitor biometric data collected from a patient…; paragraph 0049, discussing that the care plan management application could continue to monitor the patient's adherence to the assigned task and, upon determining that the patient's adherence is sufficiently low (e.g., below a threshold amount of adherence), the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan in an attempt to boost the patient's adherence to the assigned task. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the schedule at which the prescribed tasks are to be performed, e.g., altering the day of the week on which the task is to be performed, altering the duration of the task, increasing the window of time during which the patient can complete the task and be considered on time, and so on; paragraph 0060, discussing that after selecting a care protocol via the drop down menu, the interface may present tasks, thresholds, and metrics associated with the care protocol…; paragraph 0071, discussing that the care plan management application also ensures patient performance of the assigned tasks specified in the care plan. As an example, a mobile device could be configured to generate a graphical user interface that allows the patient to input when the patient has completed a particular assigned task. Upon detecting that a patient has not completed an assignment task within a window of time specified in the care plan, the patient care application on the mobile device could generate a reminder for the patient; paragraphs 0029, 0063, 0104), the processing of calculating includes extracting a change point of presence or absence of the menu execution on the basis of a difference between the acquired plan data and the acquired achievement data (paragraph 0029, discussing that once the monitoring devices are determined, the care platform can transmit the care plan to the application deployed on the mobile device. Through the device, the patient may access the care plan and understand the tasks to perform. Moreover, information can be provided to the patient through the mobile device as part of the administration of the care plan. For example, such information can be provided via a display device of the mobile device, through one or more speaker devices of the mobile device, other input/output devices of the mobile device or some combination thereof. Examples of such information includes alerts (e.g., provided responsive to a monitored metric exceeding a threshold value), reminders (e.g., when a patient fails to perform an assigned task within a specified window of time), educational content (e.g., instructional videos, audio and/or documents describing how to perform a particular exercise), and so on; paragraph 0071, discussing that the care plan management application also ensures patient performance of the assigned tasks specified in the care plan. As an example, a mobile device could be configured to generate a graphical user interface that allows the patient to input when the patient has completed a particular assigned task. Upon detecting that a patient has not completed an assignment task within a window of time specified in the care plan, the patient care application on the mobile device could generate a reminder for the patient), and calculating the change frequency for each of the stakeholders for the menu that has the change point (paragraph 0045, discussing that the patient could be assigned the task of reading particular educational content every morning as part of the administration of the care plan. If the care plan management application then detects that the patient is infrequently completing the assigned task, the care plan management application could alter the care plan to provide the educational content through a different medium. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the care plan such that the patient is assigned to watch an educational video on the same topic as the written educational content, using the mobile device once per week. Doing so allows the care plan to be adjusted to suit the individual preferences of the patient, while helping to ensure that the patient completes the assigned tasks laid out in the care plan; paragraph 0049, discussing that the care plan management application could continue to monitor the patient's adherence to the assigned task and, upon determining that the patient's adherence is sufficiently low (e.g., below a threshold amount of adherence), the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan in an attempt to boost the patient's adherence to the assigned task. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the schedule at which the prescribed tasks are to be performed, e.g., altering the day of the week on which the task is to be performed, altering the duration of the task, increasing the window of time during which the patient can complete the task and be considered on time, and so on; paragraph 0072, discussing that the care plan management application is configured to adjust the assigned tasks based on the patient's history of compliance. For instance, a patient could be assigned the task of reading an educational article on an aspect of the patient's diagnosed condition every, but the care plan management application could determine that the patient's compliance with the assigned task is very poor (e.g., 25% compliance). Based on such a determination, the care plan management application could alter the assigned task to use another form of media content that the patient may prefer more than the written articles. For example, the care plan management application could alter the care plan to assign the patient the task of watching an education video on an aspect of the patient's condition on a daily basis, rather than reading the educational article. Moreover, if the care plan management application determines that such an alteration improves the patient's compliance with the assigned task, the care plan management application could record this information for use in assigning future tasks to the patient. For example, the care plan management application could determine that this particular patient tends to prefer video content over textual content, and thus could assign a preference to tasks involving video content in the future; paragraph 0104, discussing that because the care plan may be tied to mobile and sensor devices of the patient, the care platform may monitor the progress of the patient's adherence to the care plan, allowing for further customization of the care plan as necessary). The Dettinger-Wong combination does not explicitly teach the processing of specifying includes specifying a combination of the stakeholders with the low change frequency to the menu . However, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Kumar teaches: the processing of specifying includes specifying a combination of the stakeholders with the low change frequency to the menu (paragraph 0048, discussing that the generation of the personalized care plan, and thus, the patient actions and monitoring actions of an assessor, may further take into consideration historical analysis of both the present patient and other similar patients with regard to previously prescribed patient care plans associated with these patients and their relative success/failure at adhering to these previously prescribed patient care plans and/or individual patient care plan actions that are part of these previously prescribed patient care plans. That is, historical analysis of patient information is performed across multiple patients to determine which care plans patients previously were able to adhere to, which care plans, and individual patient actions or tasks within patient care plans, resulted in successful outcomes for the patients, which resulted in unsuccessful outcomes for the patients, and generates a prediction as to the best patient care plans, patient actions or tasks, etc. to be given to future patients having similar attributes. This will result in patient care plans having tasks/actions for both the patient and the assessor that are tailored to the particular patient, as mentioned above, but in which previous success of other similar patients is taken into account when generating the personalized patient care plan. This historical analysis can be performed in the aggregate over a plurality of patients and/or on an individual basis based on what this particular patient has shown success, or lack thereof, with in the past; paragraph 0049, discussing that if it is determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend to have negative results when their patient care plan involves strong cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day (i.e., the patient tends to fail to complete this task), then future prescribed patient care plans may adjust based on this historical analysis. For example, the future patient care plans may reduce the requirement or substitute the requirement of the care plan, e.g., replace the patient action with one that requires mild cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day. Alternatively, if it determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend have positive results when their patient care plan involves drinking coffee and eating oatmeal for breakfast, then this may be added to future care plans for similar patients. Thus, adjustment of future patient care plans is made based on historical analysis of similar patient care plans and the patient's own history indicating positive results and adherence to previous patient care plans, e.g., if this particular patient has a history of failing to perform stressful exercise based patient actions in the past, then future patient care plans for this patient may be modified to not include stressful exercised based patient actions. paragraph 0110, discussing that it should be appreciated that in addition to the evaluation of the patient's demographic, medical, and lifestyle information, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may evaluate the historical personalized care plan information for a patient and for other similar patients to determine appropriate patient actions to include in a personalized care plan. For example, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may look to a history of personalized care plans created for this patient, as may be maintained in the personalized patient care plan database in association with an identifier of the patient, to determine what patient actions the patient was able to successfully complete in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans and use this information to select those same patient actions for a current personalized patient care plan should the current personalized patient care plan have similar goals, general patient actions, and the like that the previously successful patient actions would satisfy. Thus, when selecting personalized patient actions to include in the personalized patient care plan, different weightings may be applied to patient actions based on whether or not they were previously prescribed to this patient, whether or not they were previously successfully completed by the patient in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans, and a level of successful or non-successful completion of the patient action in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans. A highest ranking patient action, amongst the possible patient actions, may then be selected for inclusion in the personalized patient care plan; paragraph 0111, discussing that the personalized care plan creation/update engine may retrieve information from the patient cohort database to classify the patient into a patient cohort. The patient cohort is a grouping of patients that have similar characteristics, e.g., similar demographics, similar medical diagnoses, etc. Patient cohorts may be generated using any known or later developed grouping mechanism. One example mechanism may be using a clustering algorithm that clusters patients based on key characteristics of the patient, e.g., age, gender, race, medical diagnosis, etc. With regard to the illustrative embodiments, the present patient may be grouped into a patient cohort and the other members of the patient cohort may be evaluated to identify patient actions that the other members were able to successfully complete as part of their individual personalized patient care plans; paragraph 0097). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger- Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including the processing of specifying includes specifying a combination of the stakeholders with the low change frequency to the menu, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 3 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 2 . Dettinger further teaches wherein the processing of calculating the change frequency is calculated on the basis of an overlap of distributions of parameters that include a time, a location, an effect, and a difficulty level that indicate expected values regarding implementation of the menu for each of the stakeholders (paragraph 0020, discussing that some tasks in each of the printed pamphlets may overlap (e.g., two different care plans may instruct a patient to take a certain dosage of aspirin at a given time of day), a patient may have difficulty understanding the tasks to perform, leading to poor compliance. Moreover, in some situations, the tasks for treating the various diagnosed conditions may conflict with one another, leaving the patient unsure as to how to reconcile the conflict; paragraph 0026, discussing that the care platform may consolidate the configured care plan protocols into one overall care plan for the patient. However, it is possible that some tasks and phases of different care plan protocols overlap. As such, the care platform may perform operations to reconcile any conflicts between care plan protocols as part of the care plan creation. For example, a care plan protocol for high blood pressure and another for diabetes may include a step for walking for ten minutes each day. Both protocols may also include a step for taking two aspirin pills in the morning, and including two separate steps for taking aspirin may yield unintended consequences related to a dosage that the patient should be taking. As such, the care platform could consolidate the two separate tasks into a single task of taking two aspirin pills each morning; paragraph 0042, discussing that the patient information represents patient-specific information describing a patient's medical history and treatment history. In one embodiment, the care plan management application may generate the care plan based on the patient information, in addition to customizations to care protocol templates that the care provider provides. Patient information may include medications previously prescribed to the patient and whether the medications had a beneficial or adverse effect towards the patient. In a case where a particular medication has had an adverse effect towards a patient, the care plan management application may flag tasks associated with taking the medication to the care provider configuring the care plan. In response, the care provider may edit or remove the task; paragraph 0049, discussing that the care plan management application could continue to monitor the patient's adherence to the assigned task and, upon determining that the patient's adherence is sufficiently low (e.g., below a threshold amount of adherence), the care plan management application could alter the patient's care plan in an attempt to boost the patient's adherence to the assigned task. For instance, the care plan management application could alter the schedule at which the prescribed tasks are to be performed, e.g., altering the day of the week on which the task is to be performed, altering the duration of the task, increasing the window of time during which the patient can complete the task and be considered on time, and so on; paragraphs 0071, 0098). As per claim 4 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3 . Although not explicitly taught by the Dettinger-Wong combination, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems teaches wherein the processing of specifying includes combining the stakeholders each other that have similar distributions of the expected values (paragraph 0048, discussing that the generation of the personalized care plan, and thus, the patient actions and monitoring actions of an assessor, may further take into consideration historical analysis of both the present patient and other similar patients with regard to previously prescribed patient care plans associated with these patients and their relative success/failure at adhering to these previously prescribed patient care plans and/or individual patient care plan actions that are part of these previously prescribed patient care plans. That is, historical analysis of patient information is performed across multiple patients to determine which care plans patients previously were able to adhere to, which care plans, and individual patient actions or tasks within patient care plans, resulted in successful outcomes for the patients, which resulted in unsuccessful outcomes for the patients, and generates a prediction as to the best patient care plans, patient actions or tasks, etc. to be given to future patients having similar attributes. This will result in patient care plans having tasks/actions for both the patient and the assessor that are tailored to the particular patient, as mentioned above, but in which previous success of other similar patients is taken into account when generating the personalized patient care plan. This historical analysis can be performed in the aggregate over a plurality of patients and/or on an individual basis based on what this particular patient has shown success, or lack thereof, with in the past; paragraph 0049, discussing that if it is determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend to have negative results when their patient care plan involves strong cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day (i.e., the patient tends to fail to complete this task), then future prescribed patient care plans may adjust based on this historical analysis. For example, the future patient care plans may reduce the requirement or substitute the requirement of the care plan, e.g., replace the patient action with one that requires mild cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day. Alternatively, if it determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend have positive results when their patient care plan involves drinking coffee and eating oatmeal for breakfast, then this may be added to future care plans for similar patients. Thus, adjustment of future patient care plans is made based on historical analysis of similar patient care plans and the patient's own history indicating positive results and adherence to previous patient care plans, e.g., if this particular patient has a history of failing to perform stressful exercise based patient actions in the past, then future patient care plans for this patient may be modified to not include stressful exercised based patient actions. paragraph 0110, discussing that it should be appreciated that in addition to the evaluation of the patient's demographic, medical, and lifestyle information, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may evaluate the historical personalized care plan information for a patient and for other similar patients to determine appropriate patient actions to include in a personalized care plan. For example, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may look to a history of personalized care plans created for this patient, as may be maintained in the personalized patient care plan database in association with an identifier of the patient, to determine what patient actions the patient was able to successfully complete in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans and use this information to select those same patient actions for a current personalized patient care plan should the current personalized patient care plan have similar goals, general patient actions, and the like that the previously successful patient actions would satisfy…; paragraph 0111, discussing that the personalized care plan creation/update engine may retrieve information from the patient cohort database to classify the patient into a patient cohort. The patient cohort is a grouping of patients that have similar characteristics…Patient cohorts may be generated using any known or later developed grouping mechanism. One example mechanism may be using a clustering algorithm that clusters patients based on key characteristics of the patient, e.g., age, gender, race, medical diagnosis, etc. With regard to the illustrative embodiments, the present patient may be grouped into a patient cohort and the other members of the patient cohort may be evaluated to identify patient actions that the other members were able to successfully complete as part of their individual personalized patient care plans). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including wherein the processing of specifying includes combining the stakeholders each other that have similar distributions of the expected values, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 5 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 3 . Although not explicitly taught by Dettinger, Wong in the analogous art of planning system teaches the processing of specifying includes obtaining a workflow that combines a plurality of menus on the basis of the distributions of the expected values for each plurality of menus (paragraph 0084, discussing that a group of the schedule of collection events is/are to be conducted in order to be useful for addressing the situation or problem of the selected use case is then determined. This results in one or more adherence criteria. In addition to and/or instead of the manner for performing a collection, the adherence criteria may also be based on one or more biomarker values falling into a pre-defined range or is equal to a certain pre-defined value. In other embodiments, the adherence criteria can be a formula (s) which uses a biomarker datum or group of such data to determine if the resulting value falls into the pre-defined range or is equal to a certain pre-defined value; paragraph 0086, discussing that the condition(s) and context(s) in which the schedule of events is to be started and ended can be determined. This results in one or more entry criteria and exit criteria being provided for the schedule of events as well as possibly for a group of other schedule of events to which the schedule of events belongs if providing a package of structured collection procedures, e.g., procedures 70a, 70b, 70c, and 70d, which may run concurrently and/or sequentially one after the other). Dettinger is directed towards techniques related to health care, and more specifically, for administering an individualized care plan for a patient. Wong is directed towards a behavior modification program facilitated through a structured tailoring method and system which provides help when the individual begins to fail in adhering or continuing with the behavior modification. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dettinger with Wong because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger to include Wong‘s feature for including the processing of specifying includes obtaining a workflow that combines a plurality of menus on the basis of the distributions of the expected values for each plurality of menus, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing structured tailoring in order to help improve the success of an individual changing and maintaining health related behavior by individualizing behavior change action plans (Wong, paragraph 0186); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . 07-21-aia AIA 25. Claim s 6-11 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger in view of Wong, in view of Kumar, in further view of Perlroth et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0193171 A1, [hereinafter Perlroth] . As per claim 6 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 4 . Dettinger further teaches wherein the stakeholders include a planner who plans the menu of the service, a provider who provides the service, and a user who uses the servic e (paragraph 0024, discussing that the care plan could specify an assigned task for a patient to weigh themselves weekly until the patient is out of target weight range. Upon detecting the patient's weight is outside of the target range, the care platform could provide instructions (and potentially a medical prescription, with the approval of the patient's physician) for the patient to follow in order to get the patient's weight back into the target range. Moreover, the care platform could alter the patient's care plan to assign the patient the task of weighing himself daily until the patient's weight has returned to the target range. As another example, the care platform could adjust the duration of the patient's assigned task of walking, based on the patient's ability to get their heart rate into a target zone and to sustain this heart rate, as determined from data collected using one or more monitoring devices during the patient's previous exercise sessions; paragraph 0025, discussing that the physician may customize metrics specified in the care protocol and thresholds associated with each metric; paragraph 0032, discussing that the care plan could perform treatment operations responsive to detecting an observation metric that exceeds a threshold value, before escalating to a physician or emergency services; paragraph 0034, discussing that the care provider environment includes a care platform server, a physician device, and a portal. Each of the care platform server, physician device, and portal may be a physical computing system or may be a virtual computer instance (e.g., executing in a cloud computing platform). A care provider may use the physician device to access a portal user interface hosted by the portal. The portal user interface itself provides users (e.g., the care providers, the patient, authorized members of the patient's family, etc.) with access to the care platform server; paragraph 0071, discussing that The care plan management application also ensures patient performance of the assigned tasks specified in the care plan; paragraph 0072, discussing that the care plan management application could alter the care plan; paragraph 0033). Although not explicitly taught by Dettinger, Wong in the analogous art of planning system teaches the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user (paragraph 0084, discussing that a group of the schedule of collection events is/are to be conducted in order to be useful for addressing the situation or problem of the selected use case is then determined. This results in one or more adherence criteria. In addition to and/or instead of the manner for performing a collection, the adherence criteria may also be based on one or more biomarker values falling into a pre-defined range or is equal to a certain pre-defined value. In other embodiments, the adherence criteria can be a formula (s) which uses a biomarker datum or group of such data to determine if the resulting value falls into the pre-defined range or is equal to a certain pre-defined value; paragraph 0160, discussing that the software residing on the client compute serves as the interface between the server and the meter. The software at the front end includes a user-friendly interface that provides the clinician with ready information pertaining to the overall practice. This information may include details about all assigned individuals, details about the individuals the clinician is scheduled to see on a given day, as well as the details about individuals that need extra attention. The software also interfaces with a database that includes relevant data that is arranged by an individual patient ID, such as used by and provided in the healthcare record system. The software interface also allows the clinician to access the individual details using the individual identifier. In this manner the software provides the clinician with information about the collection procedure(s) that the individual has already completed (i.e., those with a completed set for the completion flag), the associated results, and also the collection procedure(s) that the individual is currently performing…The clinician can access data from all individuals in the practice. In addition, an individual can access his data, such as from a server of the clinicians, using his/her patient identifier in a secure web-based format. This data is downloaded to the database on computer from the meter and associated to the individual using the individual identifier). Dettinger is directed towards techniques related to health care, and more specifically, for administering an individualized care plan for a patient. Wong is directed towards a behavior modification program facilitated through a structured tailoring method and system which provides help when the individual begins to fail in adhering or continuing with the behavior modification. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dettinger with Wong because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger to include Wong‘s feature for including the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing structured tailoring in order to help improve the success of an individual changing and maintaining health related behavior by individualizing behavior change action plans (Wong, paragraph 0186); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. While Kumar describes that the particular monitoring actions to be employed are matched to the specific personalized patient care plan that is associated with the patient (paragraph 0045), the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination does not explicitly teach the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user with similar distributions of the expected values. However, Perlroth in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Perlroth teaches: the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user with similar distributions of the expected values (paragraph 0006, discussing that the provider matching service also provides a user friendly service to a patient such that the patient can easily find best matched providers according to his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment. For example, a patient may use a client device, e.g., a mobile phone, laptop or personal computer, which executes a provider matching application provided by the provider matching service, to input his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment and to request providers that best match his/her medical needs. The provider matching service receives such a request from a client device of a patient, searches the providers in a provider database, and selects one or more providers that best match the patient's need based on the providers' multi-dimensional rankings; paragraph 0024, discussing that the software application is executed to provide a patient's input, such as the patient's medical conditions and preferences for treatment, to the provider matching service to request health care providers that match his/her medical conditions and preferences for treatment, and to receive matched providers' information from the provider matching service. For example, upon executing the software application installed in the client device, the software application module communicates with the provider matching service to send a request for health care providers for a patient using the client device. The user of the client device can request health care providers for the patient based on the patient's medical conditions and preferences for treatment. Upon receiving the matched providers' information from the provider matching service, the software application module presents the providers' information in an intuitive and user friendly way; paragraph 0030, discussing that all the information obtained from is used by the provider matching service for ranking providers for the patient in multiple dimensions. For example, each medical condition selected by the patient is considered as one dimension. Each medical condition may have one or more treatment options, e.g., medication and psychotherapy. Using the examples shown above, the provider matching service has a total of 12 dimensions (6 medical conditions*2 methods of treatments) to rank the providers for the patient. The patient's preferences for a treatment, such as, location, time, language, etc., are used by the provider matching service to filter out providers that do not match the patient's preferences, and the remaining providers in the filtered set can be ranked by the provider matching service; paragraph 0050). The Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination describes features related to health care and planning. Perlroth is directed to a personalized health care provider matching service is provided to rank and select the best matched health care providers for a patient. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination with because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination to include Perlroth‘s feature for including the processing of specifying includes processing of combining the provider and the user with similar distributions of the expected values, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of reducing inefficiencies in health care delivery and providing more personalized and precise patient care (Perlroth, paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 7 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar-Perlroth combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 6 . Although not explicitly taught by the Dettinger-Wong combination, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the low change frequency (paragraph 0048, discussing that the generation of the personalized care plan, and thus, the patient actions and monitoring actions of an assessor, may further take into consideration historical analysis of both the present patient and other similar patients with regard to previously prescribed patient care plans associated with these patients and their relative success/failure at adhering to these previously prescribed patient care plans and/or individual patient care plan actions that are part of these previously prescribed patient care plans. That is, historical analysis of patient information is performed across multiple patients to determine which care plans patients previously were able to adhere to, which care plans, and individual patient actions or tasks within patient care plans, resulted in successful outcomes for the patients, which resulted in unsuccessful outcomes for the patients, and generates a prediction as to the best patient care plans, patient actions or tasks, etc. to be given to future patients having similar attributes. This will result in patient care plans having tasks/actions for both the patient and the assessor that are tailored to the particular patient, as mentioned above, but in which previous success of other similar patients is taken into account when generating the personalized patient care plan. This historical analysis can be performed in the aggregate over a plurality of patients and/or on an individual basis based on what this particular patient has shown success, or lack thereof, with in the past; paragraph 0049, discussing that if it is determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend to have negative results when their patient care plan involves strong cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day (i.e., the patient tends to fail to complete this task), then future prescribed patient care plans may adjust based on this historical analysis. For example, the future patient care plans may reduce the requirement or substitute the requirement of the care plan, e.g., replace the patient action with one that requires mild cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day. Alternatively, if it determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend have positive results when their patient care plan involves drinking coffee and eating oatmeal for breakfast, then this may be added to future care plans for similar patients. Thus, adjustment of future patient care plans is made based on historical analysis of similar patient care plans and the patient's own history indicating positive results and adherence to previous patient care plans, e.g., if this particular patient has a history of failing to perform stressful exercise based patient actions in the past, then future patient care plans for this patient may be modified to not include stressful exercised based patient actions; paragraph 0110, discussing that it should be appreciated that in addition to the evaluation of the patient's demographic, medical, and lifestyle information, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may evaluate the historical personalized care plan information for a patient and for other similar patients to determine appropriate patient actions to include in a personalized care plan. For example, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may look to a history of personalized care plans created for this patient, as may be maintained in the personalized patient care plan database in association with an identifier of the patient, to determine what patient actions the patient was able to successfully complete in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans and use this information to select those same patient actions for a current personalized patient care plan should the current personalized patient care plan have similar goals, general patient actions, and the like that the previously successful patient actions would satisfy. Thus, when selecting personalized patient actions to include in the personalized patient care plan, different weightings may be applied to patient actions based on whether or not they were previously prescribed to this patient, whether or not they were previously successfully completed by the patient in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans, and a level of successful or non-successful completion of the patient action in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans. A highest ranking patient action, amongst the possible patient actions, may then be selected for inclusion in the personalized patient care plan; paragraph 0111, discussing that the personalized care plan creation/update engine may retrieve information from the patient cohort database to classify the patient into a patient cohort. The patient cohort is a grouping of patients that have similar characteristics, e.g., similar demographics, similar medical diagnoses, etc. Patient cohorts may be generated using any known or later developed grouping mechanism. One example mechanism may be using a clustering algorithm that clusters patients based on key characteristics of the patient, e.g., age, gender, race, medical diagnosis, etc. With regard to the illustrative embodiments, the present patient may be grouped into a patient cohort and the other members of the patient cohort may be evaluated to identify patient actions that the other members were able to successfully complete as part of their individual personalized patient care plans; paragraph 0097). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the low change frequency, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination does not explicitly teach assigning the menu with the low change frequency that uses the change frequency of the provider for the menu as a constraint condition, in a case where the change frequency of the provider for the menu is low. However, Perlroth in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Perlroth teaches: assigning the menu with the low change frequency that uses the change frequency of the provider for the menu as a constraint condition, in a case where the change frequency of the provider for the menu is low (paragraph 0039, discussing that the database stores patient input data received from the client device. The received patient input data may include a patient's medical conditions and treatment preferences. The patient input data may also include the patient's medical records, patient's demographic information , patient's drug prescription(s) and consumption information for that drug prescription (e.g., whether the patient adhered to the medication regimen prescribed); paragraph 0044, discussing that the analysis module determines constraints based on the patient's treatment preferences. The patient's treatment preferences can be divided into two sets: preference for treatment options, and personal preferences (e.g., a geographical location, time available, language preferences, gender, age, cultural considerations, and insurance plans accepted). Each of the patient's personal preferences is used by the matching module to exclude providers that do not match with the patient's personal preference. For example, a provider is located beyond the distance limit preferred by the patient is not included in the matching by the matching module. However, in some embodiments, the providers not meeting the preferences or only meeting some preferences are not necessarily excluded, but instead those providers can also be ranked along with the rest. In this case, the providers who do not meet one or more preferences might be highlighted are marked in red and the preference not met indicated next to the provider so the patient is aware of the preferences not met. Alternatively, the preferences not met can be considered another factor on which the provider is ranked. In some embodiments, the patient can customize whether providers not meeting certain preferences are excluded completely or not; paragraph 0059, discussing that the medication analysis module further analyzes the differences among the lines of treatments for each type of health care provider. The differences can be used to derive volume and adherence to medication treatments by the providers. In one embodiment, the lines of treatments are set up such that competent providers for treating a given medical condition should prescribe the appropriate first line medications before the second line medications, and competent providers should have a population of patients under treatment that reflect decreasing frequency of use across lines of medications with experts most utilizing the later lines of treatment…; paragraph 0056). The Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination describes features related to health care and planning. Perlroth is directed to a personalized health care provider matching service is provided to rank and select the best matched health care providers for a patient. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination with because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination to include Perlroth‘s feature for including assigning the menu with the low change frequency that uses the change frequency of the provider for the menu as a constraint condition, in a case where the change frequency of the provider for the menu is low , in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of reducing inefficiencies in health care delivery and providing more personalized and precise patient care (Perlroth, paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 8 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar-Perlroth combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 6 . Although not explicitly taught by the Dettinger-Wong combination, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems teaches wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the distribution of the expected value of the user for the menu as a constraint condition (paragraph 0048, discussing that the generation of the personalized care plan, and thus, the patient actions and monitoring actions of an assessor, may further take into consideration historical analysis of both the present patient and other similar patients with regard to previously prescribed patient care plans associated with these patients and their relative success/failure at adhering to these previously prescribed patient care plans and/or individual patient care plan actions that are part of these previously prescribed patient care plans. That is, historical analysis of patient information is performed across multiple patients to determine which care plans patients previously were able to adhere to, which care plans, and individual patient actions or tasks within patient care plans, resulted in successful outcomes for the patients, which resulted in unsuccessful outcomes for the patients, and generates a prediction as to the best patient care plans, patient actions or tasks, etc. to be given to future patients having similar attributes. This will result in patient care plans having tasks/actions for both the patient and the assessor that are tailored to the particular patient, as mentioned above, but in which previous success of other similar patients is taken into account when generating the personalized patient care plan. This historical analysis can be performed in the aggregate over a plurality of patients and/or on an individual basis based on what this particular patient has shown success, or lack thereof, with in the past; paragraph 0049, discussing that if it is determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend to have negative results when their patient care plan involves strong cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day (i.e., the patient tends to fail to complete this task), then future prescribed patient care plans may adjust based on this historical analysis. For example, the future patient care plans may reduce the requirement or substitute the requirement of the care plan, e.g., replace the patient action with one that requires mild cardiac exercise for 30 minutes a day. Alternatively, if it determined that diabetic patients that are female, in the age range of 40-45, and are smokers tend have positive results when their patient care plan involves drinking coffee and eating oatmeal for breakfast, then this may be added to future care plans for similar patients. Thus, adjustment of future patient care plans is made based on historical analysis of similar patient care plans and the patient's own history indicating positive results and adherence to previous patient care plans, e.g., if this particular patient has a history of failing to perform stressful exercise based patient actions in the past, then future patient care plans for this patient may be modified to not include stressful exercised based patient actions. paragraph 0110, discussing that it should be appreciated that in addition to the evaluation of the patient's demographic, medical, and lifestyle information, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may evaluate the historical personalized care plan information for a patient and for other similar patients to determine appropriate patient actions to include in a personalized care plan. For example, the personalized care plan creation/update engine may look to a history of personalized care plans created for this patient, as may be maintained in the personalized patient care plan database in association with an identifier of the patient, to determine what patient actions the patient was able to successfully complete in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans and use this information to select those same patient actions for a current personalized patient care plan should the current personalized patient care plan have similar goals, general patient actions, and the like that the previously successful patient actions would satisfy. Thus, when selecting personalized patient actions to include in the personalized patient care plan, different weightings may be applied to patient actions based on whether or not they were previously prescribed to this patient, whether or not they were previously successfully completed by the patient in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans, and a level of successful or non-successful completion of the patient action in previously prescribed personalized patient care plans. A highest ranking patient action, amongst the possible patient actions, may then be selected for inclusion in the personalized patient care plan; paragraph 0111, discussing that the personalized care plan creation/update engine may retrieve information from the patient cohort database to classify the patient into a patient cohort. The patient cohort is a grouping of patients that have similar characteristics, e.g., similar demographics, similar medical diagnoses, etc. Patient cohorts may be generated using any known or later developed grouping mechanism. One example mechanism may be using a clustering algorithm that clusters patients based on key characteristics of the patient, e.g., age, gender, race, medical diagnosis, etc. With regard to the illustrative embodiments, the present patient may be grouped into a patient cohort and the other members of the patient cohort may be evaluated to identify patient actions that the other members were able to successfully complete as part of their individual personalized patient care plans). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including wherein the processing of specifying includes assigning the menu with the distribution of the expected value of the user for the menu as a constraint condition, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 9, the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar-Perlroth combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 8 . While Dettinger describes a portal user interface that displays the selected care protocol templates, where the care provider may customize various facets of each selected template (paragraph 0039) and that the patient care application may display information related to the care plan (paragraph 0045), it does not explicitly teach wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting the combination of the menus with the low change frequency to the user . However, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Kumar teaches: wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting the combination of the menus with the low change frequency to the user (paragraph 0113, discussing that the resulting personalized patient care plan comprises patient actions to be performed by the patient, and corresponding monitoring actions to be performed by the assessor. Having generated a personalized patient care plan (PPCP) taking into account the patient's personal lifestyle, the PCPCM system outputs the personalized patient care plan to the requestor system for use by the patient in performing the patient actions of the personalized patient care plan. In addition, the personalized patient care plan further comprises monitoring actions that are to be performed by an assessor via assessor system, which may be a human being utilizing communications and/or computing equipment to perform their monitoring actions, an automated system that automatically performs monitoring actions, or a combination of human and automated systems. The personalized patient care plan is output to the assessor system(s) such that the assessor may utilize the monitoring actions in the personalized patient care plan to monitor and evaluate the patient's performance of the patient actions; paragraph 0120, discussing that patient specific lifestyle information is retrieved for the patient from a plurality of different lifestyle information sources. Moreover, in some illustrative embodiments, a historical analysis is performed on patient actions in previously prescribed PCPs for this patient and similar patients (such as patients in a same cohort) to identify patient actions that are ones that the patient is likely to be able to adhere to and weight them more heavily during a selection process. A personalized PCP is generated based on the generalized PCP as a basis which is then customized and personalized to the specific patient using the retrieved lifestyle information, the historical analysis results identifying patient actions that are likely to be adhered to by this patient, and established rules, patterns, algorithms, logic, etc., for generating personalized patient actions and combining them in a serial manner to generate a sequence of patient actions and goals that together constitute the patient's side of the personalized patient care plan. Based on the selected patient actions in the personalized patient care plan, corresponding monitor actions for all or a subset of the patient actions are generated using monitoring action rules, patterns, algorithms, logic, or the like. The monitoring actions are combined with the patient actions in the personalized PCP (PPCP) which is then output to the patient system(s) and assessor system(s) for implementation and monitoring of the PPCP). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including wherein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting the combination of the menus with the low change frequency to the user, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 10 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar-Perlroth combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 7 . Dettinger further teaches w herein the processing of outputting includes displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user (paragraph 0021, discussing that the techniques for administering a customized health care plan for an individual. In one embodiment, a care platform is provided that allows a physician to design a care plan tailored specifically for an individual patient. The care plan may include multiple care plan protocols, with each of the care plan protocols addressing a respective medical condition the patient has been diagnosed with. Generally, a care plan protocol describes the treatment of a particular medical condition. For instance, a care plan could specify a set of specific tasks for a patient to follow to manage the particular medical condition and could divide the tasks by phases and schedules). The Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination does not explicitly teach displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user with the change frequency as a constraint condition . However, Perlroth in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Perlroth teaches: displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user with the change frequency as a constraint condition (paragraph 0030, discussing that all the information obtained from is used by the provider matching service for ranking providers for the patient in multiple dimensions. For example, each medical condition selected by the patient is considered as one dimension. Each medical condition may have one or more treatment options, e.g., medication and psychotherapy. Using the examples shown above, the provider matching service has a total of 12 dimensions (6 medical conditions*2 methods of treatments) to rank the providers for the patient. The patient's preferences for a treatment, such as, location, time, language, etc., are used by the provider matching service to filter out providers that do not match the patient's preferences, and the remaining providers in the filtered set can be ranked by the provider matching service; paragraph 0043, discussing that the analysis module analyzes patient input data for generating pre-conditions of provider matching. In one embodiment, the pre-conditions include the patient's medical conditions and constraints based on the patient's treatment preferences. Each of the patient's medical conditions represents one dimension in ranking the providers by the matching module. For example, provider matching for a patient currently experiencing following medical conditions, depression, anxiety, alcohol/substance abuse, ADHD, bipolar, and psychosis can find providers for each medical condition (i.e., a single dimension matching) and for a combination of multiple conditions (e.g., a two-dimensional matching for treating depression and anxiety). In one embodiment, the analysis module determines the patient's medical conditions through a health survey presented to the user. According to the user feedback, the analysis module determines the patient's mental well-being and medical conditions, including an estimate of severity of the patient's mental well-being and medical conditions; paragraph 0068, discussing that the provider matching service receives patient data of a given patient and health care provider data. The patient data includes current medical conditions of the patient and the patient's preferences for treatment. The health care provider data includes information describing the providers, their medication prescribing patterns, and disqualifying events. The provider matching service analyzes received data to determine the patient's medical conditions. For example, the provider matching service determines how many medical conditions the patient is currently experiencing and the severity of each medical condition. Each medical condition of the patient represents a dimension in ranking the providers for the patient. The provider matching service filters out disqualified providers based on the disqualifying events and the patient's preferences for treatment. The provider matching service analyzes medication and treatment data associated with the providers in multiple dimensions determined by the combination of the patient's medical conditions and preferences for treatment. The provider matching service ranks the providers in the multiple dimensions. The provider matching service provides one or more best matched providers to the patient based on the ranking. The provider matching service tracks patient responses to the medication and treatment provided by a best matched provider and provides tracking data to adjust the ranking of the providers. The provider matching service repeats the steps in real time and continuously as long as the provider matching service is used; paragraphs 0047, 0069) The Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination describes features related to health care and planning. Perlroth is directed to a personalized health care provider matching service is provided to rank and select the best matched health care providers for a patient. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination with because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong-Kumar combination to include Perlroth‘s feature for including displaying and outputting, to the provider, a schedule in which the menus are combined for the each user with the change frequency as a constraint condition, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of reducing inefficiencies in health care delivery and providing more personalized and precise patient care (Perlroth, paragraph 0002); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per claim 11 , the Dettinger-Wong-Kumar-Perlroth combination teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 10 . While Dettinger describes that the patient care application may display information related to the care plan (paragraph 0045), the Dettinger-Wong combination does not explicitly teach wherein the processing of displaying and outputting includes information of the change frequency for the each menu. However, Kumar in the analogous art of planning systems teaches this concept. Kumar teaches: wherein the processing of displaying and outputting includes information of the change frequency for the each menu (paragraph 0048, discussing that in an even further aspect of the illustrative embodiments, the generation of the personalized care plan, and thus, the patient actions and monitoring actions of an assessor, may further take into consideration historical analysis of both the present patient and other similar patients with regard to previously prescribed patient care plans associated with these patients and their relative success/failure at adhering to these previously prescribed patient care plans and/or individual patient care plan actions that are part of these previously prescribed patient care plans. That is, historical analysis of patient information is performed across multiple patients to determine which care plans patients previously were able to adhere to, which care plans, and individual patient actions or tasks within patient care plans, resulted in successful outcomes for the patients, which resulted in unsuccessful outcomes for the patients, and generates a prediction as to the best patient care plans, patient actions or tasks, etc. to be given to future patients having similar attributes. This will result in patient care plans having tasks/actions for both the patient and the assessor that are tailored to the particular patient, as mentioned above, but in which previous success of other similar patients is taken into account when generating the personalized patient care plan. This historical analysis can be performed in the aggregate over a plurality of patients and/or on an individual basis based on what this particular patient has shown success, or lack thereof, with in the past; paragraph 0113, discussing that the resulting personalized patient care plan comprises patient actions to be performed by the patient, and corresponding monitoring actions to be performed by the assessor. Having generated a personalized patient care plan (PPCP) taking into account the patient's personal lifestyle, the PCPCM system outputs the personalized patient care plan to the requestor system for use by the patient in performing the patient actions of the personalized patient care plan. In addition, the personalized patient care plan further comprises monitoring actions that are to be performed by an assessor via assessor system, which may be a human being utilizing communications and/or computing equipment to perform their monitoring actions, an automated system that automatically performs monitoring actions, or a combination of human and automated systems. The personalized patient care plan is output to the assessor system(s) such that the assessor may utilize the monitoring actions in the personalized patient care plan to monitor and evaluate the patient's performance of the patient actions; paragraph 0118, discussing that it should be appreciated that the patient systems may further comprise systems for identifying the current location, environmental conditions, changes in a schedule, and the like, for use by the assessor systems in providing feedback to the PCPCM system to adjust the PPCP for the patient's current location and environment. That is, the PPCP may be dynamically adjusted based on the patient's current environmental conditions, changes in schedule, determined deviations from the care plan, and other dynamic conditions that may interfere or otherwise require modification, either temporarily or permanently, of the patient's personalized patient care plan. As noted above, such factors as weather conditions, temperature conditions, resource availability (e.g., gym is closed), and the like may require temporary modifications to a patient's personalized patient care plan. Other factors, such as the patient moving to a new location, obtaining a new place of employment, or the like, may require more permanent modifications to the patient's personalized patient care plan. Such factors may be identified and corresponding modifications initiated taking into account the new temporary/permanent lifestyle changes of the patient; paragraph 0120, discussing that patient specific lifestyle information is retrieved for the patient from a plurality of different lifestyle information sources. Moreover, in some illustrative embodiments, a historical analysis is performed on patient actions in previously prescribed PCPs for this patient and similar patients (such as patients in a same cohort) to identify patient actions that are ones that the patient is likely to be able to adhere to and weight them more heavily during a selection process. A personalized PCP is generated based on the generalized PCP as a basis which is then customized and personalized to the specific patient using the retrieved lifestyle information, the historical analysis results identifying patient actions that are likely to be adhered to by this patient, and established rules, patterns, algorithms, logic, etc., for generating personalized patient actions and combining them in a serial manner to generate a sequence of patient actions and goals that together constitute the patient's side of the personalized patient care plan. Based on the selected patient actions in the personalized patient care plan, corresponding monitor actions for all or a subset of the patient actions are generated using monitoring action rules, patterns, algorithms, logic, or the like. The monitoring actions are combined with the patient actions in the personalized PCP (PPCP) which is then output to the patient system(s) and assessor system(s) for implementation and monitoring of the PPCP). The Dettinger-Wong combination describes features related to health care and planning. Kumar is directed towards systems and methos for modification of personalized health care plans based on patient adherence to patient actions. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Dettinger-Wong combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for planning, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning methods), and because modifying Dettinger-Wong combination to include Kumar‘s feature for including wherein the processing of displaying and outputting includes information of the change frequency for the each menu, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing monitoring and periodic checks of the patient's progress to ensure that the patient is adhering to the treatment needed to control and/or improve the patient's condition (Kumar, paragraph 0020); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 12, the Dettinger-Wong combination teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a planning program for causing a computer to execute processing (Dettinger, paragraph 0006: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium and system for carrying out the aforementioned method”; paragraph 0102: “One embodiment of the present disclosure is implemented as a program product for use with a computer system. The program(s) of the program product defines functions of the embodiments (including the methods described herein) and can be contained on a variety of computer-readable storage media. Examples of computer-readable storage media include (i) non-writable storage media (e.g., read-only memory devices within a computer such as CD-ROM or DVD-ROM disks readable by an optical media drive) on which information is permanently stored; (ii) writable storage media (e.g., floppy disks within a diskette drive or hard-disk drive) on which alterable information is stored. Such computer-readable storage media, when carrying computer-readable instructions that direct the functions of the present disclosure, are embodiments of the present disclosure. Other examples media include communications media through which information is conveyed to a computer, such as through a computer or telephone network, including wireless communications networks.”) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rangadass, Pub. No.: US 2013/0304498 A1 – describes generating a patient care plan for each patient in a medical care facility. Roots et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0043606 A1 – describes a computer-implemented method for matching a patient with one or more healthcare providers. Nudd et al., Patent No.: US 11,633,103 B1 – describes using information from the system database about what's eaten by seniors with similar backgrounds and input from the caregiver, who has a specially designed phone app with the ability to input specialized preferences from the senior, to design a menu that will be acceptable to the senior. Willcut et al., Patent No.: US 9,764,162 B1 – describes a GUI display that can show information about an intended patient care or treatment plan. Further describes determining an indication of a deviation from the initial or a current patient care plan; and adapting one or more subsequent radiation therapy sessions specified in the patient care plan based on the indication of the deviation from the initial or the current patient care plan. Bosworth, Hayden B., et al. "Recommendations for providers on person-centered approaches to assess and improve medication adherence." Journal of general internal medicine 32.1 (2017): 93-100 – describes that medication non-adherence is a significant clinical challenge that adversely affects psychosocial factors, costs, and outcomes that are shared by patients, family members, providers, healthcare systems, payers, and society. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darlene Garcia-Guerra whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on 571- 270-5389. 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. /Darlene Garcia-Guerra/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 15 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 16 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 17 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 18 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 19 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 20 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 21 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 22 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 23 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 24 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 25 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 26 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 27 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 28 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 29 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 30 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 31 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 32 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 33 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 34 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 35 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 36 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 37 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 38 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 39 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 40 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 41 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 42 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 43 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 44 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 45 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 46 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 47 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 48 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 49 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 50 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 51 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 52 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 53 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 54 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 55 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 56 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 17/983,740 Page 57 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights