Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
The specification objections are withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 03/31/2026.
The claim objection to claim 41 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 03/31/2026.
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment filed on 3/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 21-26 and 38-51 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment filed on 3/31/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) enablement rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 21-26 and 38-51 have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and further consideration, new issues have been identified as provided below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character "301" has been used to designate both the presentation layer of the user device (left column, FIG. 3) and the clinical device (right column header, FIG. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification uses "CEMS 312" at paragraphs [092], [094], [097], and [0116], but the Cause-Effect Modeling Service is assigned reference number 303 throughout the remainder of the specification and reference number 312 designates the Clinical Analysis Service (CAS); these paragraphs appear to intend "CAS 312"; paragraph [0117] refers to "CAS 303," which appears to intend "CAS 312"; paragraph [065] refers to "CES 312," which appears to intend "CAS 312"; and paragraph [032] the description of the Delivery Service (DS 302) refers to "CAS 313," which appears to intend "CAS 312" (reference 313 designates the interface engine within CAS 312, not CAS 312 itself); further, paragraph [0116] refers to "CEMS 312" in a context (bypassing service-level analysis) that appears to intend "CEMS 303".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: a spurious comma appears after the "identifying" in the sub-step "identifying, one or more actions to prevent the event from occurring or to facilitate the event". No parenthetical phrase, adverbial modifier, or other grammatical element follows the comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 21: "an adaptive pattern service configured to relate the collected information by identifying relationships between the collected information"
Claimed function: relating the collected information by identifying relationships between the collected information
Corresponding structure: the Adaptive Pattern Service (APS 304) implemented as software modules 101-3/104-3 executed by processor(s) 101-1/104-1 (¶[019]–[020], [038]), performing the function via Statistical Relational Learning / Markov logic relationship-weighting (¶[042]–[045]), a hierarchical network of nodes building a normalized Markov graph of transition probabilities and forming temporal groups by hierarchical clustering (¶[046]–[052]), and the “Relationship Discovery” / k-means procedures (¶[059], [069]–[070])
Interpretation: limited to the disclosed APS 304 software and algorithms (¶[042]–[052], [069]–[070]) that perform the relating/identifying-relationships function, and equivalents thereof
Claim 38: "an adaptive pattern service configured to relate the information related to the user by identifying relationships between the collected information"
Claimed function: relating the information related to the user by identifying relationships between the collected information
Corresponding structure: APS 304 (modules 101-3/104-3 executed by processor 101-1/104-1) performing the function via the SRL/Markov-logic, hierarchical-node-network, and Relationship Discovery algorithms (¶[042]–[052], [069]–[070])
Interpretation: limited to the disclosed APS 304 software and algorithms that perform the relating/identifying-relationships function, and equivalents thereof
Claim 41: "an adaptive pattern service configured to relate the user specific data by identifying relationships between the user specific data"
Claimed function: relating the user specific data by identifying relationships between the user specific data
Corresponding structure: APS 304 (modules 101-3/104-3 executed by processor 101-1/104-1) performing the function via the SRL/Markov-logic, hierarchical-node-network, and Relationship Discovery algorithms (¶[042]–[052], [069]–[070])
Interpretation: limited to the disclosed APS 304 software and algorithms that perform the relating/identifying-relationships function, and equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-26 and 38-51 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 21 recites that automatically revising the plan includes the sub-step: “after presenting the one or more actions to the user, based on the user’s subjective assessment of the plan, identifying one or more actions, as part of the revised plan, to prevent the event from occurring or to facilitate the event.” This sub-step is ambiguous and renders the claim indefinite for two interrelated reasons.
First, the claim’s main body recites electronically receiving the feedback including the user’s subjective assessment of the plan before the revising step commences, and the automatically revising step is expressly conditioned on “the received feedback.” The final sub-step of the wherein revising clause, however, conditions the identification of actions on “the user’s subjective assessment of the plan” occurring “after presenting the one or more actions to the user.” It is thus ambiguous whether: (a) the same subjective assessment already received is being used at this later juncture (rendering the “after presenting” temporal conditioner confusing, because the assessment was received before any actions were presented), or (b) a new, second subjective assessment is required from the user after the actions are presented (a step that is nowhere recited in the claim). A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty from the claim language which interpretation controls.
Second, the wherein revising clause as a whole presents a structural inconsistency. The main body characterizes revising the plan as a single step triggered by the received feedback. The wherein sub-clause, however, describes revising as a multi-step process that includes presenting the identified actions to the user (an act that temporally intervenes between receiving feedback and completing plan revision). This creates irresolvable uncertainty as to whether the revising step is a closed, feedback-triggered computation or an interactive process requiring additional user engagement. See MPEP § 2173.
Claims 22–26, each depending directly from claim 21, inherit these deficiencies.
For purposes of examination, “after presenting the one or more actions to the user, based on the user’s subjective assessment of the plan, identifying one or more actions, as part of the revised plan” in claims 21–26 is interpreted under BRI to encompass the process of: (a) presenting candidate actions to the user within the plan-revising sub-process; and (b) applying the user’s previously received subjective assessment to select final actions for the revised plan.
Independent claim 38 recites that the collected information includes “one or more of behavioral user data, clinical user data, and/or personal user data.” The use of “and/or” in a claim list renders this limitation indefinite. The phrase “one or more of behavioral user data, clinical user data, and/or personal user data” is susceptible to at least three plausible interpretations: (1) at least one type selected from the group {behavioral, clinical, personal}; (2) any combination of the three types under both conjunctive and disjunctive relationships; or (3) any one or more of the three types under an inclusive “or.” The preferred formulation under MPEP § 2173.05(h) uses “or” before the last element to avoid this ambiguity. The specification at ¶[038] uses the same “and/or” construction without defining its operative meaning, providing no clarifying standard.
In addition, independent claim 38 contains the same ambiguous wherein revising sub-clause identified in claims 21–26. Claim 38 recites that revising the plan includes: “after presenting the one or more actions to the user, based on the user’s subjective assessment of the plan, identifying one or more actions, as part of the revised plan, to prevent the event from occurring or to facilitate the event.” For the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 21–26, this sub-step is ambiguous as to whether it requires a new subjective assessment (not recited in the claim) or reuses the previously received assessment in a temporally inconsistent manner. See MPEP § 2173.05(b); MPEP § 2173; Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901.
Claims 39–40, each depending directly from claim 38, inherit these deficiencies.
For purposes of examination: (1) “one or more of behavioral user data, clinical user data, and/or personal user data” in claim 38 is interpreted under BRI to encompass any one of, any combination of two, or all three data types, consistent with ¶[038]. (2) The wherein revising sub-clause of claim 38 is interpreted under BRI consistently with the construction set forth for claims 21–26.
Independent claim 41 recites, as its final step: “after presenting the one or more actions to the user, based on the user’s subjective assessment of the user care plan, identifying one or more actions, as part of the revised user care plan, to prevent the event from occurring or to facilitate the event.” This limitation is indefinite on two independent grounds. First, the phrase “after presenting the one or more actions to the user” recites “presenting the one or more actions to the user” (with the definite article “the”) as a prior event after which the final step occurs. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41 recites the step of “presenting the revised user care plan”, but not the step of “presenting the one or more actions to the user” as a separate, distinct act. The claim thus conditions its final step on an event that is never recited. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading claim 41 in light of the specification cannot determine what prior event triggers the final step or whether “presenting the one or more actions to the user” is intended to be coextensive with “presenting the revised user care plan.” See MPEP § 2173.05(e); Second, the final step requires identifying one or more actions “as part of the revised user care plan” after that revised user care plan has already been generated and presented. This creates a structural contradiction: actions cannot be identified “as part of” a plan that has already been finalized and delivered. A PHOSITA cannot determine whether the claim is directed to a single-pass process (revised plan is final upon generation) or an iterative refinement process (plan revision continues after presentation). The claim does not disclose a mechanism for incorporating new actions into an already-presented plan. See MPEP § 2173; MPEP § 2173.05(g). Moreover, as with claims 21 and 38, the qualifier “based on the user’s subjective assessment of the user care plan” in the final step is ambiguous as to whether it employs the assessment already received in the feedback step or requires a new, unclaimed assessment. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Dependent claim 43 additionally recites “the generated plan” without clear antecedent basis. Parent claim 41 uses “user care plan” and “revised user care plan” throughout but never introduces “the generated plan” as a distinct term. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
For purposes of examination: (1) “after presenting the one or more actions to the user” in claims 41–51 is interpreted under BRI to refer to the “presenting the revised user care plan” step, construed as presenting the actions contained within the plan. This construction is based on ¶[0101] (plan includes implementation schedule for actions) and ¶[0106] (DS presents plans). (2) “as part of the revised user care plan” is interpreted under BRI as adding to or refining the plan through an iterative loop, consistent with ¶[061] and ¶[0105]–[0107]. (3) “the generated plan” in claim 43 is interpreted under BRI as the revised user care plan generated in the parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patents and/or related publications are cited in the Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892) attached to this action to further show the state of the art with respect to adaptive pattern learning through hierarchical networks for personalized health condition management and feedback-driven plan revision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/ALAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights