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 .
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 31-34, 36, 38-41, 43-48, and 50-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 31-34, 36, 38-41, 43-48, and 50-54 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 31-34, 36, 38-41, 43-48, and 50-54 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 31, 38, and 45 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 31
A method for a health application, the method comprising:
receiving, by a user device, a first interval associated with a medication identifier and a second interval associated with the medication identifier, wherein the second interval sequentially follows the first interval;
determining, by the user device, a number of days of a medication dosage period, the medication dosage period comprising the first interval followed by the second interval;
generating, by the user device, a sliding generation window that is presented with a timeline comprising the first interval followed by the second interval, the sliding generation window indicating a third interval comprising respective portions of the first interval and the second interval, the third interval indicating a time period for which automatic calendaring is desired;
determining, by the user device, a first portion of the first interval that falls within the third interval indicated by the sliding generation window;
generating, by the user device, one or more calendar indications for the first portion of the first interval that falls within the third interval indicated by the sliding generation window;
and populating, by the user device, an electronic calendar of the health application, with the one or more calendar indications.
*Claims 38 and 45 recite similar limitations to claim 31 but for a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
determining and generating) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “device” and “application”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the device language, the claim encompasses the user attaining information on a medication and scheduling its usage. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components and functions such as generating and populating also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow the steps to gather information and apply it to a schedule), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 32-34, 36, 39-41, 43-44, 46-48, and 50-54 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 32, reciting a specific way that the calendaring should occur, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions such as a device and processor).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 31 recites: device, electronic
Claim 38 recites: device, processor for executing a health application, computer-readable medium comprising instructions
Claim 45 recites: non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, processor executing a health application
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a device, processor for executing a health application, computer-readable medium, and computer-readable medium comprising instructions. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of electronic.
Dependent claims 34, 36, 39-41, 43-44, 48, 50, and 53 recite device
Dependent claims 34, 41, and 48 recite display
Dependent claims 36 and 43 recite transmitting, server, receiving,
Dependent claims 40, 41, 43, 47-48, and 50 recite processor
Dependent claims 36, 43-44, 50, and 54 recite input
Dependent claims 46-48, 50 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a device, processor, server, and non-transitory computer readable medium. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of a display, transmitting, receiving, and input.
Dependent claims 32-33 and 51-52 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 31, 38, and 45, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 31, 38, and 45 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A method in claim 31; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields as demonstrated by:
Recitation of electronic, which is expressly used to indicate utilization or operation of a device that operates on with the aid of components that control and direct an electric current (Col.2, Line 25, Kulawiec (US8706523B2) discloses: “The mobile electronic device 102 is generally used to facilitate management of a treatment regimen by a device operator.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Recitation of displaying, which expressly used to show data on a screen/device (Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Recitation of synchronized, which is expressed used for systems that are updated at the same time (Col. 6, Line 13, Varadarajan (US11507420B2) discloses: “the time window scheduler may synchronize [SYNCRHONIZED] the start times and durations of the time windows on the multiple cores.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Recitation of receiving, which refers to the process where a computer or device acquires information transmitted from another source (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Recitation of inputting refers to information or instructions fed into a computer or other system to initiate a process or generate an output (Para 0080, Lade(US 20220379787 A1) discloses: “Additionally, systems disclosed herein can include one or more interfaces allowing user interaction that includes one or more conventional inputs, such as haptic inputs including a dial, button, touch screen, etc.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Recitation of transmitting, which refers to broadcast or send out and electrical signal (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 32-33 and 51-52 do not include any additional elements beyond those already addressed above for independent claims 31, 38, and 45. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 31, 38, and 45 hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
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.
Claims 31-34, 38-41, 44-48, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulawiec(US8706523B2) in view of Varadarajan(US11507420B2).
Claim 31
Kulawiec discloses:
A method for a health application, the method comprising:
receiving, by a user device(Col. 2, Line 8, Kulawiec discloses: “treatments associated with the treatment regimen may be scheduled through a mobile electronic device or portable communication device…” [A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE CAN BE A USER DEVICE]), a first interval(Col. 11, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses: “first treatment schedule associated with the first treatment component” [FIRST TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE FIRST INTERVAL]) associated with a medication identifier(Figure 7, Kulawiec discloses names of medications, which can be considered an identifier) and a second interval(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE SECOND INTERVAL]) associated with the medication identifier(Figure 7, Kulawiec discloses names of medications, which can be considered an identifier), wherein the second interval(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE SECOND INTERVAL]) sequentially follows the first interval(Col. 11, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses: “first treatment schedule associated with the first treatment component” [FIRST TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE FIRST INTERVAL]);
determining, by the user device, a number of days of a medication dosage period(Col. 4, Line 55, Kulawiec discloses medication over a defined period of time input by a user), the medication dosage period comprising the first interval followed by the second interval(Col. 4, Line 54, Kulawiec discloses regular basis over a period of time [EACH BASIS CAN BE A TIME INTERVAL]);
generating, by the user device, a sliding generation window(Col. 2, Line 63, Varadarajan discloses: “A sliding time window is able to adjust the start time of the time window such that the tasks…” [SLIDING TIME WINDOW CAN BE SLIDING GENERATION WINDOW]) that is presented with a timeline comprising the first interval followed by the second interval(Col. 8, Line 45 on, Kulawiec discloses the generation of a sliding medication window with multiple windows), the sliding generation window indicating a third interval comprising respective portions of the first interval and the second interval, the third interval indicating a time period for which automatic calendaring is desired(Col. 6, Line 57, Kulawiec discloses a treatment regimen may include multiple discrete segments which may have one or more treatments or schedules [CAN BE CONSIDERED THID INTERVAL]);
determining, by the user device, a first portion of the first interval that falls within the third interval indicated by the
generating, by the user device, one or more calendar indications(Col. 4, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses an alert corresponding to times at which treatment should be undertaken) for the first portion of the first interval that falls within the third interval(Col. 6, Line 1, Kulawiec discloses a third treatment schedule may be associated with a third treatment component[THIRD INTERVAL]) indicated by the sliding generation window;
and populating, by the user device, an electronic calendar of the health application(Col. 8, Line 63, Kulawiec discloses the generating of an electronic calendar), with the one or more calendar indications(Col. 4, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses an alert corresponding to times at which treatment should be undertaken).
Kulawiec does not disclose: sliding generation window
Varadarajan discloses: sliding generation window
sliding generation window (Col. 2, Line 63, Varadarajan discloses: “A sliding time window is able to adjust the start time of the time window such that the tasks…” [SLIDING TIME WINDOW CAN BE SLIDING GENERATION WINDOW])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add sliding generation window, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for patients to keep to a medication protocol while allowing for variations in a patient’s schedule, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claim 32
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the first interval(Col. 11, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses: “first treatment schedule associated with the first treatment component” [FIRST TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE FIRST INTERVAL]) is designated for taking a first medication(Col. 11, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses: “first treatment schedule associated with the first treatment component” [FIRST TREATMENT COMPONENT CAN BE FIRST MEDICATION]), and wherein the second interval(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE SECOND INTERVAL]) is designated for refraining from taking the first medication(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT COMPONENT CAN BE REFRAINING FROM TAKING FIRST MEDICATION]).
Claim 33
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the method further comprises; determining that a selected day of the sliding generation window falls within the first interval(Col. 11, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses: “first treatment schedule associated with the first treatment component” [FIRST TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE FIRST INTERVAL]) or the second interval(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE SECOND INTERVAL]); and refraining from generating a calendar indication for the selected day(Col. 9, Line 64, Kulawiec discloses enabling a treatment alert, which indicates that a treatment alert is optional) within the third interval(Col. 6, Line 1, Kulawiec discloses a third treatment schedule may be associated with a third treatment component[THIRD INTERVAL]) indicated by the
Kulawiec does not disclose: sliding generation window
Varadarajan discloses: sliding generation window
sliding generation window (Col. 2, Line 63, Varadarajan discloses: “A sliding time window is able to adjust the start time of the time window such that the tasks…” [SLIDING TIME WINDOW CAN BE SLIDING GENERATION WINDOW])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add sliding generation window, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for patients to keep to a medication protocol while allowing for variations in a patient’s schedule, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claim 34
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the electronic calendar(Col. 3, Line 15, Kulawiec discloses: “electronic calendar”) is synchronized between the user device(Col. 2, Line 8, Kulawiec discloses: “treatments associated with the treatment regimen may be scheduled through a mobile electronic device or portable communication device…” [A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE CAN BE A USER DEVICE]) and a second device (Figure 1, Kulawiec discloses “Treatment Management Device” which can be considered a second device), and the method further comprises displaying (Col. 17, Line 64, Kulawiec discloses: “…alternative noncompliance options may be displayed.” [DISPLAYED IS DISPLAYING]) a notification on either the user device(Col. 2, Line 8, Kulawiec discloses: “treatments associated with the treatment regimen may be scheduled through a mobile electronic device or portable communication device…” [A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE CAN BE A USER DEVICE]) or the second device(Figure 1, Kulawiec discloses “Treatment Management Device” which can be considered a second device) based on a historical use (Col. 7, Line 36, Kulawiec discloses: “treatment history” [TREATMENT HISTORY CAN BE HISTORICAL USE]) of the user device(Col. 2, Line 8, Kulawiec discloses: “treatments associated with the treatment regimen may be scheduled through a mobile electronic device or portable communication device…” [A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE CAN BE A USER DEVICE]) or the second device(Figure 1, Kulawiec discloses “Treatment Management Device” which can be considered a second device) by a user.
Kulawiec does not disclose: synchronized
Varadarajan discloses: synchronized
synchronized (Col. 6, Line 13, Varadarajan discloses: “the time window scheduler may synchronize [SYNCRHONIZED] the start times and durations of the time windows on the multiple cores.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add synchronization, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for all systems interacting with the electronic calendar for medication protocol adherence to be updated at the same time when new information is present, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claims 38 and 45
Claims 38 and 45 recite similar limitations to claim 31. See claim 31 analysis.
Claims 39 and 46
Claims 39 and 46 recite similar limitations to claim 32. See claim 32 analysis.
Claims 40 and 47
Claims 40 and 47 recite similar limitations to claim 33. See claim 33 analysis.
Claims 41 and 48
Claims 41 and 48 recite similar limitations to claim 34. See claim 34 analysis.
Claim 44
Claim 44 recites similar limitations to claim 37. See claim 37 analysis.
Claim 51
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, comprising: determining a medication dosage period that comprises the first interval followed by the second interval; and generating, on a presented
Kulawiec does not explicitly disclose: a timeline with a plurality of consecutive instances
Varadarajan discloses:
a timeline with a plurality of consecutive instances(Figure 2, Varadarajan discloses a timeline with a plurality of consecutive instances)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add a timeline with a plurality of consecutive instances, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for all systems interacting with the electronic calendar for medication protocol adherence to be updated at the same time when new information is present, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claim 52
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the electronic calendar(Figure 8, Kulawiec discloses an electronic calendar) is different from the presented
Kulawiec does not explicitly disclose: a timeline
Varadarajan discloses:
a timeline(Figure 2, Varadarajan discloses a timeline)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add a timeline, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for all systems interacting with the electronic calendar for medication protocol adherence to be updated at the same time when new information is present, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claim 53
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, further comprising: determining, by the user device, a second portion of the second interval that falls within the third interval indicated by the sliding generation window(Col. 6, Line 57, Kulawiec discloses a treatment regimen may include multiple discrete segments which may have one or more treatments or schedules); generating, by the user device, an additional one or more calendar indications(Col. 4, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses an alert corresponding to times at which treatment should be undertaken) for the second portion of the first interval that falls within the third interval indicated by the sliding generation window(Col. 4, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses an alert corresponding to times at which treatment should be undertaken); and populating, by the user device, the electronic calendar(Col. 8, Line 63, Kulawiec discloses the generating of an electronic calendar) of the health application with the one or more calendar indications(Col. 4, Line 58, Kulawiec discloses an alert corresponding to times at which treatment should be undertaken), wherein the second interval corresponds to a second medication that differs from a first medication corresponding to the first interval(Col. 111, Line 59, Kulawiec discloses: “second treatment schedule associated with the second treatment component” [SECOND TREATMENT SCHEDULE CAN BE SECOND INTERVAL WITH A DIFFERENT MEDICATION]).
Claim 54
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein generating the
Practical
Kulawiec does not explicitly disclose: sliding generation window
Varadarajan discloses: sliding generation window
sliding generation window (Col. 2, Line 63, Varadarajan discloses: “A sliding time window is able to adjust the start time of the time window such that the tasks…” [SLIDING TIME WINDOW CAN BE SLIDING GENERATION WINDOW])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add sliding generation window, as taught by Varadarajan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for patients to keep to a medication protocol while allowing for variations in a patient’s schedule, but in this case, for use as a method for scheduling tasks in aerospace applications (Col. 1, Line 25 , Varadarajan discloses: “In multi-core platforms, characterizing and bounding cross core interference is critical in determining the worst case execution time and therefore budgets, where the budgets form the basis for time partitions.”).
Claims 36, 43, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulawiec(US8706523B2) in view of Varadarajan(US11507420B2) and Mirhaji(US20170300469A1).
Claim 36
Kulawiec discloses:
The method of claim 31, wherein the input is a first input, and wherein the method further comprises: processing a second input(Col. 6, Line 27, Kulawiec discloses device operator inputting) indicating a medication associated with the medication dosage period(Col. 4, Line 51, Kulawiec discloses: “some treatment regimens may require multiple medications… to be undertaken at designated times and/or on a continuous or regular basis over a defined period of time.” [MEDICATION TO BE TAKEN OVER A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME CAN BE A MEDICATION PERIOD]); transmitting, to a server(Col. 18, Line 19, Kulawiec discloses a server), a request(Col. 7, Line 26, Kulawiec discloses querying a database) for an ontology shard(Para 0115, Mirhaji discloses ontology based on medication, which can be considered an ontology shard) based at least in part on processing the second input, the ontology shard comprising information associated with the medication(Figure 1, Kulawiec discloses treatment and prescription databases which would contain ontology shards of medication information); receiving, from the server, the ontology shard integrating(Para 0091, Mirhaji discloses integration of data) the ontology shard into an ontology stored on the user device(Col. 2, Line 8, Kulawiec discloses: “treatments associated with the treatment regimen may be scheduled through a mobile electronic device or portable communication device…” [A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE CAN BE A USER DEVICE]) and retrieving the medication identifier from the ontology(Para 0252, Mirhaji discloses retrieving information from an ontology).
Kulawiec and Varadarajan do not explicitly disclose: ontology shard, integrating, and retrieving information.
Mirhaji discloses:
ontology shard(Para 0115, Mirhaji discloses ontology based on medication, which can be considered an ontology shard)
integrating(Para 0091, Mirhaji discloses integration of data)
retrieving the medication identifier from the ontology(Para 0252, Mirhaji discloses retrieving information from an ontology)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified a system for treatment regimen management of
Kulawiec to add ontology shard, data integration and retrieval, as taught by Mirhaji. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way for medication data to be retrieved and integrated into patient records to better ensure accuracy of records, but in this case, for an ontology system where collected data can be normalized, integrated, and mapped to a source (Para 0005, Mirhaji discloses: “While human experts can effortlessly understand the meaning of the text, its implications in multiple different contexts (decision support, research, quality of care, etc.), or answer questions regarding patient health status, current computational processes are not able to process such health related free text to produce structured data that allows data mining of such free text.”).
Claims 43 and 50
Claims 43 and 50 recite similar limitations to claim 36. See claim 36 analysis.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
(Page 14) Regarding the assertion that the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions under Prong 1.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims recite abstract concepts such as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity and solely relies on generic computers or computer functions to carry out the limitations. Anything not identified as abstract would be considered additional elements.
(Page 15) Regarding the assertion that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements identified above do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea.
(Page 19) Regarding the assertion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 31, 38, and 45 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A method in claim 31; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
(Pages 22-24) Regarding the assertion that Kulawiec, Varadarajan, and Mirhaji do not teach the amended limitations of the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are interpreted under BRI. As a result, the amendments are taught by Kulawiec, Varadarajan, and Mirhaji. The claims, as recited, are broad and can have broad interpretations and hence, prior art application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gamboa et al (US8086471B2): A system for electronic medication administration records comprising a cart station located at a skilled nursing facility, administration web pages, and a healthcare server not located at the skilled nursing facility.
Khalid (US10383794B2): A medication compliance alert device with an alert and detection mechanism.
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights