DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 9 July 2025 and the request for continued examination filed on 9 July 2025.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 19 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 July 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “configured to determine the biomarker” which should recite “configured to determine the determined biomarker.”
Claim 10 recites “the significance of the biomarker by displaying the biomarker” which should recite “the significance of the determined biomarker by displaying the determined biomarker.”
Claim 11 recites “the significance of the biomarker” which should recite “the significance of the determined biomarker”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claim 14, recites in part:
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. These limitations describe a concept of presenting a user with information, receiving a selection, analyzing user information, and providing a user with information and a recommendation. This concept describes a mental process that a healthcare professional should follow to give user recommendations and life extension information similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a device comprising a display configured to present an interface and a processor. Claim 14 recites the additional element of a device comprising an interface. These additional elements are recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as a generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional elements of displaying on the interface information, receiving via the interface a user input, and in response to the user input, displaying, on the interface, information. These additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of pairing the device to a wearable device, wherein the wearable device includes a sensor configured to capture the raw data and retrieve, from the wearable device associated with the user, the captured raw data. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology. Further, this additional element does not require any specific machine. Further, this additional element does not effect a transformation of an article. Further, this additional element does not meaningfully limit the implementation. Instead, this additional element does not impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea and instead amounts only to necessary data gathering. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the computing device, the display presenting an interface, the display of information via the interface, the reception of information via the interface, and the collection of data via a wearable device with a sensor only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional elements of displaying, via an interface, information and receiving, via the interface, a user input. However, Son et al. (US 2004/0164974 A1) demonstrates (See at least [0004]) that computing devices which display information and receive user input via interfaces were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of pairing the device to a wearable device, wherein the wearable device includes a sensor configured to capture the raw data and retrieve, from the wearable device associated with the user, the captured raw data. However, Ha et al. (US 2010/0160744 A1) demonstrates that such collection of data from a wearable device with a sensor was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention (“the conventional ubiquitous healthcare system includes a wrist-wearable biological signal sensor apparatus 10 for collecting health information of a user 1 while worn on a wrist of the user 1; and a portable terminal 30, a home server 40 and a personal computer (PC) 50 which are connected with the wrist-wearable biological signal sensor apparatus 10 via a wireless communications link 20.” [0007]). As such, this additional does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the computing device, the display presenting an interface, the display of information via the interface, the reception of information via the interface, and the collection of data via a wearable device with a sensor only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 7-13, 15-19, 21, and 22 further describe the abstract idea, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Claim 11 recites the additional element of an artificial intelligence model. This additional element amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. Claims 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, and 22 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons equivalent to those identified above. Therefore the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons equivalent to those identified above. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (US 2016/0055758 A1) in view of Dintefass et al. (US 2016/0350846 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 14: Francis discloses a device for providing personal medical data, the device comprising:
a display configured to present an interface (Remote computers access the web servers and permit users to interact with the virtual environment. See at least [0012]. Also: FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary home page 500 presented to the user upon user's login to the web server 16. See at least [0042]).
a processor (Remote computers access the web servers and permit users to interact with the virtual environment. See at least [0012]) configured to:
display, on the interface, a graphic of a human body, the displayed graphic of the human body comprising an avatar that is representative of the user (FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary home page 500 presented to the user upon user's login to the web server 16. The home page 500 includes a biometric display 50. See at least [0042]. Also: the user is able to select a particular biometric display 50 (e.g., an avatar) that most closely represents the user. See at least [0043]).
receive, via the interface from the user, a user input associated with a location on the displayed graphic of the human body, the user input comprising a selection by the user, of a body part of the avatar (biometric display 50 including associative active code flags 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60 that are either click-activated or fly-over activated using an input device (e.g., a mouse). See at least [0045] and Fig. 4A).
in response to the received user input, determine an organ context based on the location of the selected body part of the avatar on the displayed graphic of the human body, determine a biomarker related to the determined organ context, generate contextualized health data associated with the determined organ context by comparing the retrieved raw data to a dynamic threshold, the generated contextualized health data indicating a significance of the determined biomarker compared to a dynamic threshold, wherein the dynamic threshold is a variable threshold dynamically determined based on at least one of a health history of the user, a recent activity level of the user, or a recent activity type of the user, and in response to the user input, display, on the interface, a visualization of an organ associated with the organ context, the generated contextualized health data, a recommended action (As depicted in FIG. 4A, a first active code flag 52 is positionally associated with the character's forearm and relates to a blood glucose/A1c risk factor. … The second active code flag 54 is also positionally associated with the character's forearm and relates to the user's blood pressure. … The fifth active code flags 60 are positioned on the character's heart, thoracic, and lower right abdominal regions and represent cholesterol data, triglyceride data, and body mass index data, respectively. See at least [0046]. Also: Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. As depicted in FIG. 4A, activating active code flag 60 over the character's heart generates a secondary window 62 describing the user's cholesterol information. Within the secondary window 62, a first field 64 displays health risk categories, in this case “Bad Cholesterol (LDL),” “Good Cholesterol (HDL),” and “Total Cholesterol” together with their current values. A goal field 66 is provided that indicates target or normal values for each of the first field 64 categories and is, preferably, positioned proximate or adjacent the first field 64. A second field 68 is provided in secondary window 62 and conveys information pertaining to the risk factor displayed in the first field 64. A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047] and Fig. 4A. Also: The BDS may guide the user to choose an ultimate dream as well as to set major goals in each of the BDS categories. The BDS may flag and guide the user to set goals related to improving any risk health parameters that the system has identified. See at least [0015]. Also: The system may suggest to the user to set a goal if they are in a high risk factor (for cholesterol as an example). See at least [0055]).
pair the device to a wearable device configured to capture raw data associated with the determined biomarker related to the determined organ context and selected based on the determined biomarker, wherein the wearable device includes a sensor configured to capture the raw data; retrieve, from the wearable device associated with the user, the captured raw data (Seamless integration with third party data providers can automatically populate fields such as blood test values and heart rate data. … For another example, a user can download heart rate data from a wristwatch monitor and the data is transferred to the BDS. See at least [0027]. Also: The health database 20 may receive health information from third party sources such as, for example, a diagnostic laboratory 22, a health care provider 24, and/or a biometric monitor 26. Additionally, the user 14 may wear a monitoring device 15 (e.g., GPS, RFID) to track the user's activity and upload information concerning the user's activity either to the health database 20 or directly to the web server 16 via the network 12. The health related information may affect generation of the biometric display or the output of information concerning user 14 over the web server 16. See at least [0032]).
Francis does not disclose displaying an indication of an amount of time by which the life of the user may be extended by the user performing the recommended action.
Dintefass teaches display a recommended action, and an indication of an amount of time by which the life of the user may be extended by the user performing the recommended action (may determine a … suggested health action to improve the user's life expectancy … For example, the system may illustrate … that if the user 4 substituted fast food meals for healthier meals and joined a gym the user 4 may increase the user's life expectancy by “X” percent. See at least [0066]. Also: determine from the wearable device system 20 health information indicating that the user 4 does not get enough sleep, for example, that if the user increase the user's amount of sleep from six (6) hours to between seven (7) and eight (8) hours of sleep a night, then the user's projected life expectancy increases by “X” number of years. See at least [0067]).
Francis provides a system that communicates health information and health recommendations to a user, upon which the claimed invention’s indication of an improvement to life expectancy can be seen as an improvement. However, Dintefass demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing health recommendations to a user in conjunction with indicating a life expectancy improvement if the user follows the recommendation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied Dintefass’ indications of life expectancy improvements to the health information system of Francis. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Dintefass would have resulted in an improved system which would better motivate users to utilize the recommendations of Francis. As such, the application of Dintefass, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Francis and the teachings of Dintefass.
Regarding Claim 2 and 15: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a value of the determined biomarker is outside of an acceptable range of values; and display, on the interface in a location associated with the determined organ context, a notification indicating for the user to review the determined biomarker, wherein the user input comprises selecting the notification (FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary biometric display 50 including associative active code flags 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60 that are either click-activated or fly-over activated using an input device (e.g., a mouse). The active code flags 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60 may include an indicia, which may be … a color (e.g., red, green, yellow, white, gray, etc.) … In one implementation, the active code flags are color-coded on a red-orange-yellow-green paradigm, with a red color indicating a high health risk status. See at least [0045]).
Regarding Claim 3 and 16: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the recommended action based on the determined biomarker and consumer data associated with the user (Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. As depicted in FIG. 4A, activating active code flag 60 over the character's heart generates a secondary window 62 describing the user's cholesterol information. Within the secondary window 62, a first field 64 displays health risk categories, in this case “Bad Cholesterol (LDL),” “Good Cholesterol (HDL),” and “Total Cholesterol” together with their current values. A goal field 66 is provided that indicates target or normal values for each of the first field 64 categories and is, preferably, positioned proximate or adjacent the first field 64. A second field 68 is provided in secondary window 62 and conveys information pertaining to the risk factor displayed in the first field 64. A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047]. Also: provides at least one specific recommendation 222 to the female user for behavioral modification recommended to advance the user toward the user's goal shown in the second section 202. See at least [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4 and 17: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis wherein the organ context indicates a context of a plurality of organs based on a shared association with a location, a biomarker, or a disease (FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary biometric display 50 including associative active code flags 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60 that are either click-activated or fly-over activated using an input device (e.g., a mouse). See at least [0045] and Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 5 and 18: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to prompt the user to answer mental health questions, wherein the user input comprises user responses to the mental health questions (The inputs and outputs of the system may be managed by a secure computer network that is able to automate real-time adjustments to outputs based on user inputs including a battery of tests covering every aspect of well-being, nutrition, physical fitness, diet, mental and physical wellness. See at least [0033]. Also: The screening/test results may come from the assessment questions generated by the BDS itself. … the BDS may collect test results from physical, mental, and/or fitness tests/screenings and communicate them to the user in a color-coded risk-status alert format that may be displayed along with the biometric display 50 of the user. See at least [0073]. Also: Table 2, below, is illustrative of testing protocols that focus on mental, psychological or academic biometric parameters and performance measurements. See at least [0076]).
Regarding Claim 8: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the organ context by determining a user selection that indicates the organ context (FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary biometric display 50 including associative active code flags 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60 that are either click-activated or fly-over activated using an input device (e.g., a mouse). See at least [0045]. Also: ] Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. See at least [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the biomarker related to the organ context based on medical data from at least one of the wearable device, a medical device, a medical instrument, or a database (The user health information may be stored in a health database. The health database may be accessed by the BDS for uploading user information, process such information and dynamically modify the biometric display, and over time, provide a most current set of information to the user through the biometric display. See at least [0026]. Also: a user can download heart rate data from a wristwatch monitor and the data is transferred to the BDS. See at least [0027]).
Regarding Claim 10: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate the contextualized health data for the organ context that indicates the significance of the biomarker by displaying the biomarker to the user in relation to at least of a range or a risk model (Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. As depicted in FIG. 4A, activating active code flag 60 over the character's heart generates a secondary window 62 describing the user's cholesterol information. Within the secondary window 62, a first field 64 displays health risk categories, in this case “Bad Cholesterol (LDL),” “Good Cholesterol (HDL),” and “Total Cholesterol” together with their current values. A goal field 66 is provided that indicates target or normal values for each of the first field 64 categories and is, preferably, positioned proximate or adjacent the first field 64. A second field 68 is provided in secondary window 62 and conveys information pertaining to the risk factor displayed in the first field 64. A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the recommended action based on at least one of the determined biomarker or the contextualized health data, wherein the recommended action indicates an action that can improve a health issue related to the organ context (Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. As depicted in FIG. 4A, activating active code flag 60 over the character's heart generates a secondary window 62 describing the user's cholesterol information. Within the secondary window 62, a first field 64 displays health risk categories, in this case “Bad Cholesterol (LDL),” “Good Cholesterol (HDL),” and “Total Cholesterol” together with their current values. A goal field 66 is provided that indicates target or normal values for each of the first field 64 categories and is, preferably, positioned proximate or adjacent the first field 64. A second field 68 is provided in secondary window 62 and conveys information pertaining to the risk factor displayed in the first field 64. A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047]. Also: provides at least one specific recommendation 222 to the female user for behavioral modification recommended to advance the user toward the user's goal shown in the second section 202. See at least [0060]).
Regarding Claim 13: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine an indication that confirms a health issue related to the organ context using at least of an electronic medical record, data from a health care professional, a second biomarker, a second contextualized health data, a selection from the user, or an artificial intelligence model (Once activated, an active code flag will generate a secondary window 62 with further more detailed information on the particular health risk factor selected by the user 14. As depicted in FIG. 4A, activating active code flag 60 over the character's heart generates a secondary window 62 describing the user's cholesterol information. Within the secondary window 62, a first field 64 displays health risk categories, in this case “Bad Cholesterol (LDL),” “Good Cholesterol (HDL),” and “Total Cholesterol” together with their current values. A goal field 66 is provided that indicates target or normal values for each of the first field 64 categories and is, preferably, positioned proximate or adjacent the first field 64. A second field 68 is provided in secondary window 62 and conveys information pertaining to the risk factor displayed in the first field 64. A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047]. Also: Alternatively or additionally, approved third party healthcare resources such as insurance companies, pharmacies, diagnostic laboratories, doctor's offices, hospitals, etc. may provide the BDS with the user health information. The user health information may be stored in a health database. The health database may be accessed by the BDS for uploading user information, process such information and dynamically modify the biometric display, and over time, provide a most current set of information to the user through the biometric display. See at least [0026]).
Claim(s) 7, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (US 2016/0055758 A1) in view of Dintefass et al. (US 2016/0350846 A1), and further in view of Bassette (US 2018/0122517 A1).
Regarding Claim 7 and 19: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Francis does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to display, via the interface in response to the received user input, an organ to the user in relation to the avatar, wherein an organ is associated with the organ context.
Bassette teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display, via an interface in response to received user input, an organ in relation to the avatar, wherein an organ is associated with an organ context (With reference to FIG. 3C, another example is provided of a user utilizing one or more user interface input device(s) 104 to provide input to the display generation engine 143, and the display generation engine 143 altering one or more aspects of the display based on the input. FIG. 3C illustrates the example electronic display 300 of FIG. 3A that has been modified in response to a user selection of graphical representations of the liver and the heart. The user selection may be, for example, a selection of the graphical representations 372 and 374 and/or a selection of the additional graphical representations 382 and 384. For example, where the user interface input device 104 is a touch screen of a tablet computing device, the user may “tap” (e.g., a short tap, double tap, and/or long-tap) the graphical representation of the liver 382 and the graphical representation of the heart 384. See at least [0114]).
Francis and Dintefass suggest a system that provides information about areas of a user’s body, upon which the claimed invention’s display of particular organs can be seen as an improvement. However, Bassette demonstrates that the prior art already knew of displaying particular organs in conjunction with an avatar. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Bassette to the system of Francis and Dintefass. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Bassette would have resulted in an improved system which could clearly communicate organ specific information. As such, the application of Bassette, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Francis and the teachings of Dintefass and Bassette.
Regarding Claim 22: Francis in view of Dintefass and Bassette makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Francis discloses identify an additional organ having overlapping biomarkers; and generate an additional recommended action associated with the identified additional organ based on the overlapping biomarkers (A third field 70 is provided in the secondary window 62, which provides recommendations to the user 14 for behavior modification relative to the health risk factor category in the first field 64. See at least [0047]. Note Fig. 4, element 70, provides relations associated with lungs and stomach).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (US 2016/0055758 A1) in view of Dintefass et al. (US 2016/0350846 A1), and further in view of Abrol et al. (US 2021/0059616 A1)
Regarding Claim 11: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Francis does not expressly disclose determining an artificial intelligence model associated with a disease; determining a probability of the disease using the artificial intelligence model, the retrieved raw data, and the determined biomarker; and determining the contextualized health data using the probability of the disease, wherein the contextualized data indicates a likelihood of an outcome associated with the disease.
Abrol discloses determining an artificial intelligence model associated with a disease; determining a probability of the disease using the artificial intelligence model, retrieved raw data, and the determined biomarker; and determining contextualized health data using the probability of the disease, wherein the contextualized data indicates a likelihood of an outcome associated with the disease (an insight may include a predictive function that utilizes the medical device data for a patient as inputs and determines a likelihood (referred to as a risk score) that the patient will exhibit a given condition (e.g., hypoxia) within a certain time window. See at least [0030] Also: The hypoxia predictive insight may include a deep learning or other suitable model that utilizes a plurality of time series data signals of a plurality of patient monitoring parameters as input and outputs a hypoxia risk score that indicates a relative likelihood that the patient is undergoing or is about to undergo hypoxia. See at least [0163]. Also: he hypoxia predictive insight is one example of a predictive insight, and other predictive insights may be applied. The other predictive insights may include predictions of hyperoxia, sepsis, hypotension, hypertension, elevated or depressed heart rate, respiratory depression, and other patient conditions that could impact patient care. Further, more than one predictive insight may be applied. The predictive insight(s) may be applied to each patient the user is attending to/has selected. See at least [0164]. Also: the GUI further including a predictive tile including a risk score indicative of a relative likelihood that the patient will exhibit a specified condition within a predetermined period of time. See at least [0232]).
Francis and Dintefass suggest a system that communicates health information to a user, upon which the claimed invention’s indication of the likelihood of an outcome can be seen as an improvement. However, Abrol demonstrates that the prior art already knew of monitoring user biomarkers, determining a likelihood of a condition, and outputting an indication of a likelihood of an outcome. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Abrol to the system of Francis and Dintefass. Further, ne of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Abrol would have resulted in an improved system which would inform users about future outcomes in addition to their current state. As such, the application of Abrol, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Francis and the teachings of Dintefass and Abrol.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (US 2016/0055758 A1) in view of Dintefass et al. (US 2016/0350846 A1), and further in view of Fellowes et al. (US 2018/0144095 A1).
Regarding Claim 21: Francis in view of Dintefass makes obvious the above limitations. Francis does not expressly disclose identify conflicting data received from one or more biomarkers, the identified conflicting data indicating one or more different results of different diagnoses; analyze the one or more biomarkers; and based on the analysis, resolve the conflicting data and determine an appropriate result of diagnosis.
Fellowes teaches identify conflicting data received, the identified conflicting data including one or more different results; analyze; and based on the analysis, resolve the conflicting data and determine an appropriate result of diagnosis (A manner of resolving conflicting data among data objects associated with a common entity (e.g., via the factory grid and conflict resolution module 270), is illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9. In these particular examples, the conflicts exists between data for at least one particular field 730 of two patient records 720 associated with the same common entity 710, however, in other embodiments, conflicts may be resolved between any desirable data of matched data objects. Generally, these techniques determine a consensus value for non-matching fields, insofar as the consensus value is the value that it most likely to be correct for a particular field and generate a new record including the consensus value for each field (the techniques may also determine a consensus in cases where data objects all match to ensure the new record is complete). In some instances, the consensus value may resolve a conflict between standardized and unstandardized values, however, the consensus value does not simply standardize data, it resolves conflicts between different data values by determining the value most likely to be accurate. See at least [0063]. Also: the field specific data analysis processes may attempt to resolve conflicting data in view of gender-correlated diagnoses (e.g. prostate cancer is highly indicative of males), gender-correlated procedures (e.g. child birth is very indicative of females), gender-correlated lab test results, and gender-correlated measurements (e.g. height and weight could indicate one gender more than another). See at least [0081]).
Francis and Dintefass suggest a system that communicates health information to a user, upon which the claimed invention’s resolution of conflicting data can be seen as an improvement. However, Fellowes demonstrates that the prior art already knew of techniques for resolving conflicting health data. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Fellowes to the system of Francis and Dintefass to resolve conflicts with biomarker data. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Fellowes would have resulted in an improved system which would utilize the more likely to be accurate information of conflicting information. As such, the application of Fellowes, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure of Francis and the teachings of Dintefass and Fellowes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22:
These limitations, particularly but not limited to the steps of displaying “on the interface, a graphic of a human body, the displayed graphic of the human body comprising an avatar that is representative of a user”, receiving “via the interface from the user, a user input associated with a location on the displayed graphic of the human body, the user input comprising a selection, by the user, of a body part of the avatar”, generating “contextualized health data associated with the determined organ context by comparing the retrieved raw data to a dynamic threshold” that is “a variable threshold dynamically determined based on at least one of a health history of the user, a recent activity level of the user, or a recent activity type of the user”, a ultimately displaying, on the interface, a visualization of an organ associated with the organ context, the generated contextualized health data, a recommended action, and an indication of an amount of time by which the life of the user may be extended by the user performing the recommended action” provide additional, technical limitations that recite not only observing, evaluating, and providing an opinion as alleged in the Office Action.
In contrast to merely performing a mental process which is otherwise performable in the human mind, as amended, the claims recite manipulating an avatar displayed on an interface to identify a particular organ for which information is sought, selecting a particular device capturing data associated with the organ, comparing the data to a dynamic threshold, and providing a personalized recommendation on the interface based on a result of the data and comparison.
Claim 1, as amended, is analogous to that of claim 1 of Example 47 of the 2019 PEG recites a system of rearranging icons on a GUI that is determined to be patent eligible, as the “additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Like Example 37, the claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems that results in an improved user interface for electronic devices due to the integration of selectability of a particular part of the body, and accordingly a particular organ, and generating contextualized health data for the organ based on raw health for that organ viewed in light of a dynamic threshold particular to a user’s health history and recent activity level and types.
The limitations of claim 1 improve the functioning of a computer by providing an “interface [that] may provide a graphic of a human body that may be personalized into a personal avatar. For example a user may tap on different body parts of the avatar to render the data/information that may be relevant to that body part” and well as providing “tips, ideas, and suggestions [that] may be medically approved and recommended” as well as “a condition to monitor (e.g., such as oxygen rates for lung disease, blood pressure respiration rate, heart rate variability, inflammation for cardiovascular disease, etc.) and a tangible action to take associated with the output”, which helps “users get more specific and focal with the treatment when talking with their doctors and managing their symptoms.”
The selection of the body part is used to determine an organ context for the selected body part, raw data for the organ context is retrieved from a wearable device and compared to a dynamic threshold, and the interface displays “a visualization of an organ associated with the organ context, the generated contextualized health data, a recommended action, and an indication of an amount of time by which the life of the user may be extended by the user performing the recommendation action.” This combination of limitations is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the prior action specifically identified limitations such as “on the interface” and “via the interface” as additional elements. The presence of additional elements does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the claims do not recite “manipulating an avatar” or “selecting a particular device.” Further, the thrust of the rejection is that, in applicant’s terms, identifying a particular organ for which information is sought, comparing data to a dynamic threshold, and providing a personalized recommendation based on a result of the data and comparison is a mental process. Applicant’s incorporation of an interface, display, and data collection devices does not eliminate the abstract idea recited in the claims.
The present claims do not include a “specific manner” analogous to the limitations of Example 37, Claim 1, i.e., “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.” Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(a): “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.“ Here, the disclosure does not provide a technical disclosure for implementing “the integration of selectability of a particular part of the body, and accordingly a particular organ, and generating contextualized health data for the organ based on raw health for that organ viewed in light of a dynamic threshold particular to a user’s health history and recent activity level and types.”
It is unclear what Applicant considers the technical improvement of the claims. Further, Examiner notes that not all the cited portions of the disclosure are reflected by the claims. Assuming the cited portions of the disclosure do indicate a technical improvement, per MPEP 2106.05(a), “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), a consideration of Step 2B “is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.” Note that this does not ask whether the additional elements in combination with the abstract idea are conventional. Applicant’s assertion of the unconventionality of the claim limitation includes features of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-5, 7-19, 21, 22:
While Francis provides for a user being able to set their own goals with social opportunities, Francis fails to contemplate dynamically determining a threshold based on a user’s personal health history, activity levels, and/or activity types.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument appears to be based on a narrower interpretation of the claims than the broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner notes that the specification uses the term “dynamic threshold” exactly once ([0068] of pre-grant publication) and does not define or describe the term or the determination of dynamic thresholds. Francis contemplates a system that works with users to set goals based on their health history (“The BDS may guide the user to choose an ultimate dream as well as to set major goals in each of the BDS categories. The BDS may flag and guide the user to set goals related to improving any risk health parameters that the system has identified.” [0015]). Determining such targets reads on determining a threshold based on a user’s personal health history.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 10 January 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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