DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 10/14/2025 the following occurred: Claims 27-32, 35-43, 45, 47-55, 57, 59-65, 68-75, 77, 79-86, and 89 were amended. Claims 27-89 are presented for examination.
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 27-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 27-89 are drawn to methods, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 27 recites receiving a first indication of a first migraine state of the user at a first time instance comprising one or more of an onset, a presence, or an absence of the migraine; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent migraine state of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of migraine days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric.
Independent claim 37 recites receiving a first indication of a first plurality of emotional states of the user at a first time instance; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent plurality of emotional states of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of migraine days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric; and wherein the first plurality of emotional states and/or the subsequent plurality of emotional states comprises: a calmness, a mental stamina, and/or a time availability of the user.
Independent claim 48 recites receiving a first indication of a first migraine state and a first plurality of emotional states of the user at a first time instance; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent migraine state and a subsequent plurality of emotional states of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; and responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of migraine days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric; and wherein the first plurality of emotional states and/or the subsequent plurality of emotional states comprises: a calmness, a mental stamina, and/or a time availability of the user.
Independent claim 60 recites receiving a first indication of a first headache state of the user at a first time instance comprising one or more of an onset, a presence, or an absence of the headache; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent headache state of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of headache days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric.
Independent claim 69 recites receiving a first indication of a first plurality of emotional states of the user at a first time instance; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent plurality of emotional states of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of headache days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric; and wherein the first plurality of emotional states and/or the subsequent plurality of emotional states comprises: a calmness, a mental stamina, and/or a time availability of the user.
Independent claim 79 recites receiving a first indication of a first headache state and a first plurality of emotional states of the user at a first time instance; selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication; responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity; obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity; receiving a subsequent indication of a subsequent headache state and a subsequent plurality of emotional states of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances; selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication; and responsive to a user input, displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity; and obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity, wherein the user shows reduction in the number of headache days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric; and wherein the first plurality of emotional states and/or the subsequent plurality of emotional states comprises: a calmness, a mental stamina, and/or a time availability of the user.
The respective dependent claims 28-36, 38-47, 49-59, 61-68, 70-78, and 80-89, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that having “virtual planning that is real-time to aid in clinical decision making to optimize outcome and prognosis…will enable a greater precisions in disease predilection and ultimately prediction” (see: specification page 1). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “challenges to administering migraine medications” where “the migraineur might make a decision about taking or not taking medications with which their prescribing physician might disagree” as a result of being “forced to make such decisions without the assistance of their prescribing physician or another healthcare provider due to…difficulties reaching them while the migraineur is experiencing a headache” (see: specification paragraph 4). To address these challenges, “a service in the present disclosure is a decision support tool or digital support tool (DST) to provide timely recommendations for activities to reduce the number of migraines that a user experiences or a user's difficulty in dealing with migraines…The objective of each different activity and its corresponding messages can be to reduce the number of migraines that a user experiences or a user's difficulty in dealing with migraines” (see: specification paragraph 6). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an “by one or more graphic user interface (GUI) elements of a user interface on a computing device…displaying one or more GUI elements on the user interface for launching the first activity…by one or more GUI elements of the user interface…displaying one or more GUI elements on the user interface for launching the subsequent activity…” (claims 27, 37, 48, 60, 69, and 79), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “computing device” is configured through no more than a statement than that the graphical user interface is to be implemented “on” said computing device, and the “graphical user interface (GUI)” itself is configured though no more than a statement than that elements are displayed “on” said GUI) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea(s). The originally filed specification supports this conclusion:
Paragraph 53, where “…the session management service 105 may (sometimes herein generally referred to as a computing system or a service) be any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein…”
Paragraph 54, where “The user device 110 (sometimes herein referred to as an end user computing device or client device) may be any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein…The user device 110 may be a smartphone, other mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computing device (e.g., smart watch, eyeglasses), or laptop computer…”
Paragraph 57, where “The application 120 can include, present, or otherwise provide a user interface 145 including the one or more UI elements 150 to a user of the user device 110 in accordance with a configuration on the application 120. The UI elements 150 may correspond to visual components of the user interface 145, such as a command button, a text box, a check box, a radio button, a menu item, and a slider, among others...”
Paragraph 70, where “…The prompt 205 may be presented via the one or more UI elements 150 of the user interface 145 of the application 120 or as a push notification via the user device 110. The prompt 205 may include a text box, drop down menu, button, sliding scale, or other UI elements 150 to accept an indication 215 of state from the user 210.”
Paragraph 138, where “…A computing device (e.g., the session management service 105 or the user device 110)…”
Paragraph 282, where “…Client computing system 1414 can be implemented, for example, as a consumer device such as a smartphone, other mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computing device (e.g., smart watch, eyeglasses), desktop computer, laptop computer, and so on.”
Paragraph 283, where “…Client computing system 1414 can be a computing device implemented in a variety of form factors, such as a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smartphone, other mobile computing device, wearable computing device, or the like.”
Further, the concepts of receiving or transmitting data over a network, such as using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory have been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 28-36, 38-47, 49-59, 61-68, 70-78, and 80-89, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 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.
Claim(s) 27-8, 31-37, 42-49, 51, 54-61, 64-65, 67-69, 74-75, 77-80, 82, 85, and 87-89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0392596 to Cocco in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0268324 to Manteau-Rao.
As per claim 27, Cocco teaches a method of reducing a number of migraine days in a user at risk of a migraine, comprising:
receiving, by one or more graphic user interface (GUI) elements of a user interface on a computing device (see: Cocco, Fig. 1; and paragraph 57, is met by a system including a processor and display), a first indication of a first migraine state of the user at a first time instance comprising one or more of an onset, a presence, or an absence of the migraine (see: Cocco, paragraph 57, 74, 83, 91, 93, 102, 118, 124, and 137, is met by prompting patient survey and feedback including current a migraine status survey, symptom survey, and/or suitable surveys configured to assess migraine and headache patient states such as pain, patient responses to symptoms, pain location, where a therapeutic intervention may be during onset of a migraine and/or headache and where determining the therapeutic intervention can be delivered across all migraine phases and at any suitable time period, where correlations of time periods and patient data can determine the migraine and headache health status in relation to the patient's migraine phase);
selecting a first activity from a plurality of activities to provide a first therapeutic benefit based on the first indication (see: Cocco, paragraph 75, 93, 140-142, 147-149, 151, 153, 163, 190, and 210, is met by generate a therapeutic intervention for a patient during the onset of a migraine and/or headache, where determining the therapeutic intervention can be delivered across all migraine phases and at any suitable time period, modify the home screen settings to suggest a journaling prompt in accordance with the notification analysis and recommendation output);
displaying one or more GUI elements on the user interface (see: Cocco, paragraph 75 and 181, is met by modifying the home screen settings to suggest a journaling prompt in accordance with the notification analysis and recommendation output, where the optimal notification type, recommendation, and scheduling time is determined, and after all criteria is met, the system will transmit intervention notification and therapeutic recommendation);
displaying one or more instructions for implementing the first activity (see: Cocco, paragraph 64, 75, 80, 88-89, 95, 135, 147-149, 205, 210, and 217-218, is met by patient has journaled, delivering a migraine and headache therapeutic intervention, and a notification to be accessed by the patient through the mobile computing device, where once the patient interacts with the application on the mobile computing device, real time data is collected and transmitted, and by delivering digital therapeutic interventions including digital therapeutic content such as challenges, exercises, badges earned, lessons watched, lessons listened, and patient feedback)
obtaining a first metric associated with the user prior to the first activity (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, and 159, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger);
receiving, by one or more GUI elements of the user interface (see: Cocco, Fig. 1; and paragraph 57, is met by a system including a processor and display), a subsequent indication of a subsequent migraine state of the user during at least one of a plurality of subsequent time instances (see: Cocco, paragraph 57, 74, 83, 91, 93, 102, 118, 124, 137, and 145, is met by prompting patient survey and feedback including current a migraine status survey, symptom survey, and/or suitable surveys configured to assess migraine and headache patient states such as pain, patient responses to symptoms, pain location, where a therapeutic intervention may be during onset of a migraine and/or headache and where determining the therapeutic intervention can be delivered across all migraine phases and at any suitable time period, where correlations of time periods and patient data can determine the migraine and headache health status in relation to the patient's migraine phase, and continuously updating to operate as a feedback loop);
selecting a subsequent activity from the plurality of activities to provide a subsequent therapeutic benefit based on the subsequent indication (see: Cocco, paragraph 75, 93, 140-143, 145, 147-151, 153, 161, 163, 171, 180-181, 184, 187, 190, and 210, is met by generating predictive models including an updated model for therapeutic intervention as part of a feedback loop, and generating a therapeutic intervention for a patient during a migraine and/or headache, where determining the therapeutic intervention can be delivered across all migraine phases and at any suitable time period, modify the home screen settings to suggest a journaling prompt in accordance with the notification analysis and recommendation output);
displaying one or more GUI elements on the user interface (see: Cocco, paragraph 75 and 181, is met by modifying the home screen settings to suggest a journaling prompt in accordance with the notification analysis and recommendation output, where the optimal notification type, recommendation, and scheduling time is determined, and after all criteria is met, the system will transmit intervention notification and therapeutic recommendation);
displaying one or more instructions for implementing the subsequent activity (see: Cocco, paragraph 64, 75, 80, 88-89, 95, 135, 147-149, 205, 210, and 217-218, is met by patient has journaled, delivering a migraine and headache therapeutic intervention, and a notification to be accessed by the patient through the mobile computing device, where once the patient interacts with the application on the mobile computing device, real time data is collected and transmitted, and by delivering digital therapeutic interventions including digital therapeutic content such as challenges, exercises, badges earned, lessons watched, lessons listened, and patient feedback); and
obtaining a subsequent metric associated with the user after the subsequent activity (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, and 159, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger),
wherein the user shows reduction in the number of migraine days, when the subsequent metric is lower than the first metric (see: Cocco, paragraph 135, 146, 159, 164-171, and 199-202, is met by determining an improvement in migraine based on an increase in therapeutic lifestyle activity and digital quality of life monitoring to demonstrate improvement over a specified time period, where variables include migraine/headache days, and analyze the data and results to modify thresholds and conditions for therapeutic intervention comparison where if a potential correlation occurs, and is above a predetermined threshold, the system can modify therapeutic intervention instructions to develop new parameters for therapeutic intervention generation and such that the system can track and transmit updated results of their progress).
Cocco fails to specifically teach that the screen prompt is for launching the first activity such that a digital therapeutic is displayed responsive to a user input, or as continuously updated to operate as a feedback loop, that the screen prompt is for launching the subsequent activity such that a digital therapeutic is displayed responsive to a user input; however, teaches Manteau-Rao a GUI displaying a plurality of relief skill interface elements which a user may tap to learn more (see: Manteau-Rao, Fig. 3B and 3H-3I, and paragraph 39, 54, 61, and 67-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screen prompt and digital therapeutics as taught by Cocco to include a GUI displaying a plurality of relief skill interface elements which a user may tap to learn more as taught by Manteau-Rao with the motivation of delivering cognitive behavioral therapy content to the patient to treat symptoms associated with migraines, such as anxiety, depression, and pain (see: Manteau-Rao, paragraph 39 and 54).
As per claim 28, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the plurality of activities comprises (i) an activity associated with preventing the onset of the migraine, (ii) an activity associated with alleviating the presence of the migraine, or (iii) an activity associated with maintaining the absence of the migraine (see: Cocco, paragraph 64, 80, 88, 95, 140, 142, 147-149, and 210, is met by delivering digital therapeutic intervention during onset of a migraine and/or headache, digital therapeutic content such as challenges, exercises, badges earned, lessons watched, lessons listened, and patient feedback including activity interest data, goal data, goal target data, and lifestyle likeability data for user interest in a specific activity, with high pain and a worsened migraine and headache pain can execute a second therapeutic intervention).
As per claim 31, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the first metric at the first time instance comprises a first number of monthly migraine days (MDDs) at a baseline and wherein the subsequent metric at a last of the plurality of subsequent time instances comprises a subsequent number of MDDs (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, 146, 159, and 164, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger, migraine and headache days per month).
As per claim 32, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the first metric at the first time instance comprises a first number of MDDs at a baseline and wherein the subsequent metric comprises a subsequent number of MDDs after at least one of the plurality of subsequent time instances (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, 146, 159, and 164, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger, migraine and headache days per month).
As per claim 33, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the migraine comprises at least one of a complicated migraine, a common migraine, a silent migraine, a hemiplegic migraine, or a retinal migraine (see: Cocco, paragraph 135, 146, 149, 164, 182, and 192-193, is met by migraine differentiated from migraine with aura, tension headaches, menstrual migraine, medication-overuse headache).
As per claim 34, Cocco teaches the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teaches:
wherein the migraine lasts at least 4 hours (see: Cocco, paragraph 103, is met by duration in hours).
As per claim 35, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein a symptom of the migraine comprises one or more of: a pulsating quality, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to sound, sensitivity to light, numbness, worsened pain as a result of physical activity, and avoidance of physical activity due to migraine pain (see: Cocco, paragraph 3, 98-99, 108, 110, 124, 135, 146, 148, 160, and 164, is met by nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, sensory sensitivity, sensitivity to visual and sound, physical activity lifestyle habits).
As per claim 36, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the user is on a medication to address the migraine at least in partial concurrence over at least one of the first time instance or the plurality of subsequent time instances, wherein the medication comprises at least one of a triptan, an ibuprofen, an ergot, and a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor (see: Cocco, paragraph 98 and 139, is met by ibuprofen and CGRP).
As per claim 51, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 48, and further teach:
wherein the first indication or the second indication further identifies a characteristic of the user from a plurality of characteristics to be assessed, the plurality of characteristics including one or more of a migraine symptom, a vocal biomarker, a mood, and an engagement level to be used to select the first activity or the second activity (see: Cocco, paragraph 3, 98-99, 108, 110, 124, 135, 146, 148, 160, and 164, is met by nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, sensory sensitivity, sensitivity to visual and sound, physical activity lifestyle habits).
Claims 37, 42-49, 54-61, 64-65, 67-69, 74-75, 77-80, 82, 85, and 87-89 repeat the subject matter of claims 27-28, 31-36, and 51, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above. Claims 37, 48, 69, and 79, include the following additional claim limitations met by Cocco as cited: wherein the first plurality of emotional states and/or the subsequent plurality of emotional states comprises: a calmness, a mental stamina, and/or a time availability of the user (see: Cocco, paragraph 83, 124, 142, 149, 181-182, and 214-216, is met by survey responses including mental health, mood, motivation, triggers including emotional triggers, root cause being emotional well-being and mental health, feedback including patient’s mental state, mood, and emotions, therapeutic intervention can be delivered at any suitable time period, a notification scheduler as part of determining an optimal notification type, recommendation, and scheduling time based on patient’s active hours), but otherwise, claims 37, 42-49, 54-61, 64-65, 67-69, 74-75, 77-80, 82, 85, and 87-89 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 27-28, 31-36, and 51, which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 29-30, 40-41, 52-53, 62-63, 72-73, and 83-84 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0392596 to Cocco in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0268324 to Manteau-Rao further in view of U.S. Application Publication 2018/0294049 to Strader.
As per claim 29, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the first metric at the first time instance comprises a first score at a baseline and wherein the subsequent metric at a last of the plurality of subsequent time instances comprises a subsequent score (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, and 159, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger).
Cocco fails to specifically teach the metric is a first pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and second PCS; however, Strader teaches Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (see: Strader, paragraph 47, table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the metric as taught by Cocco and Manteau-Rao to include the Pain Catastrophizing Scale as taught by Strader with the motivation of providing a standardized tool for chronic pain assessment that can be utilized to evaluate patients' attitudes, beliefs, symptoms, motions, quality of life, and expectancies about themselves and the healthcare system (see: Strader, paragraph 46).
As per claim 30, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 27, and further teach:
wherein the first metric at the first time instance comprises a first score at a baseline and wherein the subsequent metric comprises a subsequent score after at least one of the plurality of subsequent time instances (see: Cocco, paragraph 93-96, 118, and 159, is met by determine value of one or more migraine and headache health metrics over a time period, a series of messages describing increased stress food and grocery shopping can be correlated with a migraine and headache health metric indicating a higher probability of a potential trigger).
Cocco fails to specifically teach the metric is a first pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and second PCS; however, Strader teaches Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (see: Strader, paragraph 47, table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the metric as taught by Cocco and Manteau-Rao to include the Pain Catastrophizing Scale as taught by Strader with the motivation of providing a standardized tool for chronic pain assessment that can be utilized to evaluate patients' attitudes, beliefs, symptoms, motions, quality of life, and expectancies about themselves and the healthcare system (see: Strader, paragraph 46).
Claims 40-41, 52-53, 62-63, 72-73, and 83-84 repeat the subject matter of claims 29-30, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 40-41, 52-53, 62-63, 72-73, and 83-84 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 29-30, which are incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 66, 76, and 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0392596 to Cocco in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0268324 to Manteau-Rao further in view of U.S. Application Publication 2022/0296903 to Maron-Katz.
As per claim 66, Cocco and Manteau-Rao teach the invention as claimed, see discussion of claim 60, and though Cocco teaches all the factors considered to qualify as either, Cocco does not specifically teach the following limitations met by as Maron-Katz cited:
wherein the headache comprises an icepick headache or a cluster headache (see: Maron-Katz, paragraph 14, is met by cluster headache).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the headache as taught by Cocco and Manteau-Rao to include a cluster headache as taught by Maron-Katz with the motivation of predicting a relapse of the neurological disorder (see: Maron-Katz, paragraph 14).
Claims 76 and 86 repeat the subject matter of claims 66, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 76 and 86 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 66, which are incorporated herein.
Novelty
Claims 38-39, 50, 70-71, and 81 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be novel if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 10/14/2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “the pending claims have been amended based on feedback from the Examiner. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Though additional elements have been amended into the claims, they are claimed at a high level of generality and do not represent any sort of specific improvement to the display, for example. The “computing device” is configured through no more than a statement than that the graphical user interface is to be implemented “on” said computing device, and the “graphical user interface (GUI)” itself is configured though no more than a statement than that elements are displayed “on” said GUI. None of the details of Fig. 6D relating the sensing data to breathing display are claimed as discussed in the interview.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (2) the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “independent claims 27, 37, 48, 60, 69, and 79 have been amended, thereby rendering the rejection moot. Since Cocco fails to disclose each and every element of the independent claims, the independent claims, as well as their respective dependent claims, are patentable and in condition for allowance… independent claims 27, 37, 48, 60, 69, and 79 have been amended, thereby rendering the rejection moot. Since Cocco and Strader, alone or in combination, fails to disclose each and every element of the independent claims, the independent claims, as well as their respective dependent claims, are patentable and in condition for allowance…”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are been withdrawn, but Cocco still teaches many of the elements amended into the claims as cited in the rejections above. Otherwise, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the current combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – see application of prior art Manteau-Rao.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682