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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite “the optimization including rewarding an increase to levels of group participation” on lines 12-13, 7-8, and 9-10, respectively. Applicant indicated §§ 0040, 0056, and 0061 in the original specification as providing support. § 0056 of the originally-filed specification states that group cooperation can be rewarded, for example, groups can be rewarded when everyone in the group logs a certain meal or all of their meals for the day, but there is no discussion of the optimization including the reward. This disclosure supports the concept of rewarding a group that cooperates toward a goal or task (such as logging certain meals for all meals for the day). There is no support for the optimization including the reward. Consequently, Examiner considers Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing date. Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 inherit this rejection from claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively, because they do not remedy the issue.
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.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234667, hereinafter “Thayne”) in view of Brynelsen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0087076, hereinafter “Brynelsen”).
Claims 1, 11, and 16:
Thayne discloses a system (§ 0034, Lines 1-4; Computer device 10) comprising:
one or more computer processors (§ 0036, Lines 1-2; Processing system 14 includes one or more processors, such as a central processor);
one or more computer memories (§ 0037, Lines 1-4; Memory 16);
a set of instructions incorporated into the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations (See citation above), the operations comprising:
storing information about online support groups to which members of a wellness system belong (§ 0050, Lines 1-5; The described systems and methods may be used to benefit and provide support to any individual or individuals who are in the process of maintaining a current level of function or improving from the current level to a higher level of function) (§ 0049, Lines 3-6; Through the online support system, users are able to collaborate their efforts with the efforts of other users to help an individual improve from a current level of function to a higher level of function);
based on a detecting of a change to group dynamics of the online support groups, the group dynamics pertaining to group cooperation, determining an optimization for the online support groups (§ 0107, Lines 1-7; The online support system comprises a banish feature, which allows a guardian, the individual, or another user to lock a specific user (e.g., a user that is detrimental to the cause and/or mission of the online support system out of the online support system, which pertains to group cooperation in that the banished user cannot cooperate in the group));
automatically restructuring the online support groups based on the optimization (See citations above. The redirection of team member efforts and updating of the library are involve restructuring the online support group. Also, the banish feature is a restructuring of the online support group(s) that the banished/demoted user was/is in);
determining a success of the optimization based on one or more measurement criteria (§ 0125; The method continues and the other team members are reassessed. Depending on the specific results of the assessment, the system may be used to redirect team member’s efforts to focus on the teen’s needs that have become apparent through the assessment); and
modifying the online support groups based on the optimization as new information is collected by the wellness system (See citation above. The assessment and redirecting process may be repeated again and again, as needed).
Thayne does not appear to disclose laying out selected information from the information about the online support groups, the selected information including statistics about activities of the members and the optimization including rewarding an increase to levels of group participation.
Brynelsen discloses laying out selected information from the information about the online support groups, the selected information including statistics about activities of the members (§ 0087, Lines 12-17; A web portal 150 associated with physician Z may provide the physician with the capability of comparing different patients or groups of patients by overlying or otherwise comparing graphs of weight loss, ingestion, activity endpoints, or the like) and the optimization including rewarding an increase to levels of group participation (§ 0067, Lines 10-13 and 22-31; Patients may be offered the option to join an online support group of patients with similar body mass indexes (BMI) who have similar attributes and weight loss goals. The patient will also optionally have the ability to invite health coaches into the online community, with the patient typically granting and managing a support group of the patient by granting permission to individuals to whom the patient is willing to allow access to the patient’s sensor-based data. The supporter or member of the group may be a spouse, a gym coach, a parent, a friend, or a family member. In some embodiments, the group may include another patient having an implant providing sensor-based data. The reward is an increase to levels of group participation because there is an additional person to help the patient).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thayne’s online support system by integrating features of Brynelsen’s web portal and online community in order to identify additional treatment parameters for particular subpopulations, compare different efficacies of differing types of support groups or coaching, or the like (Brynelsen, § 0087, Lines 17-20) and allow allied health professionals or patients that have been successful in changing their lifestyle to serve as leaders to the next wave of patients coming through (Brynelsen, § 0067, Lines 6-9).
The method of claim 11 is implemented by the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected with the same rationale.
Regarding the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claim 16, Thayne discloses embodiments of the disclosed invention embrace one or more computer readable media, wherein each medium may be configured to include thereon data or computer executable instructions for manipulating data (§ 0033).
Claims 3, 13, and 18:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen further discloses wherein the optimization includes bringing the members together based on one or more optimization criteria, the one or more optimization criteria including at least one of similarities between the members, preferences of the members, or the levels of group participation (Thayne, § 0107, Lines 1-7; The online support system comprises a banish feature, which allows a guardian, the individual, or another user to lock a specific user (e.g., a user that is detrimental to the cause and/or mission of the online support system) out of the online support system. The remaining members of the group are not detrimental to the cause and/or mission (i.e., similarities between the members or levels of group participation) of the online support system).
Claims 4, 14, and 19:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen further discloses wherein the optimization includes bringing the members together based on one or more optimization criteria, the one or more measurement criteria including at least one of the levels of the group participation, or rates of success of the members (Thayne, § 0107, Lines 1-7; The online support system comprises a banish feature, which allows a guardian, the individual, or another user to lock a specific user (e.g., a user that is detrimental to the cause and/or mission of the online support system) out of the online support system. The remaining members of the group are not detrimental to the cause and/or mission (i.e., levels of the group participation) of the online support system).
Claim 6:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen further discloses wherein the determining of the optimization is based on a detecting of a change that pertains to a goal, a preference, or an attribute of one of the members (Thayne, § 0107, Lines 1-7; The online support system comprises a banish feature, which allows a guardian, the individual, or another user to lock a specific user (e.g., a user that is detrimental to the cause and/or mission of the online support system) out of the online support system).
Claim 7:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen further discloses wherein the modifying includes a promotion of one of the members to a facilitator role or a demotion of a facilitator to a member role (Thayne, § 0107, Lines 7-10; The banish feature also allows a guardian, the individual, or another user to reduce the access level of a particular user).
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234667, hereinafter “Thayne”) in view of Brynelsen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0087076, hereinafter “Brynelsen”); further in view of Mizrahi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0227479, hereinafter “Mizrahi”).
Claims 2, 12, and 17:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the method as recited in claim 11, and the medium as recited in claim 16.
Thayne in view of Brynelsen does not appear to disclose wherein the statistics include the levels of group participation pertain to numbers of structured or unstructured interactions between the members.
Mizrahi discloses wherein the statistics include the levels of group participation pertain to numbers of structured or unstructured interactions between the members (§ 0417, Lines 1-3; A moderator of a particular group may be interested in feedback regarding the actual participation level of the members in the discussion).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thayne and Brynelsen’s statistics to include participation levels, as taught by Mizrahi, in order to see if discussions are helpful or not (Mizrahi, § 0417, Lines 3-5; High participation levels would typically indicate an active, vibrant group).
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234667, hereinafter “Thayne”) in view of Brynelsen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0087076, hereinafter “Brynelsen”); further in view of Gunaratnam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0040069, hereinafter “Gunaratnam”).
Claims 5, 15, and 20:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen discloses the system as recited in claims 1 and 4, the method as recited in claim 11, and the medium as recited in claims 16 and 19.
Thayne in view of Brynelsen does not appear to disclose wherein the rates of success of the members are based on a consistency of the members in logging meals with respect to the wellness system.
Gunaratnam discloses wherein the rates of success of the members are based on a consistency of the members in logging meals with respect to the wellness system (§ 0002, Lines 1-5; Consistently tracking behaviors and ensuring an individual follows a schedule can be an important, yet difficult task. This is especially true in the context of medical behaviors (e.g., taking medication, tracking water/food intake, and so on)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thayne and Brynelsen’s rates of success to be based on the consistency of tracking water/food intake, as taught by Gunaratnam, since missing doses of medication or logging other medical related activities can be critical to an individual’s health (Gunaratnam, § 0002, Lines 5-7; High participation levels would typically indicate an active, vibrant group).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234667, hereinafter “Thayne”) in view of Brynelsen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0087076, hereinafter “Brynelsen”); further in view of Mei et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8918464, hereinafter “Mei”).
Claim 8:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the method as recited in claim 11, and the medium as recited in claim 16.
Thayne in view of Brynelsen does not appear to disclose wherein the modifying includes automatically moving one or more of the members between the online support groups.
Mei discloses wherein the modifying includes automatically moving one or more of the members between the groups (Column 25, Lines 64-65; The community module 963 can be configured to allow the community 902 to merge with the community 901).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thayne and Brynelsen’s online support groups to support moving members between them, as taught by Mei, in order to increase member interactions.
Claim 9:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen discloses the system as recited in claim 1, the method as recited in claim 11, and the medium as recited in claim 16.
Thayne in view of Brynelsen does not appear to disclose wherein the modifying includes merging of two or more of the online support groups.
Mei discloses wherein the modifying includes merging of two or more of the online support groups (Column 25, Lines 64-65; The community module 963 can be configured to allow the community 902 to merge with the community 901).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thayne and Brynelsen’s online support groups to support merging them, as taught by Mei, in order to increase member interactions.
Claim 10:
Thayne in view of Brynelsen and further in view of Mei further discloses wherein the merging is based on permission of at least a subset of the members affected by the merging (Mei, Column 26, Lines 2-5; An acceptance by a community may require approval by one or more users. In one example, a community may require a majority of its members to approve any merger with another community).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
On page 10, Applicant argues Thayne does not teach or suggest detecting changes to group dynamics pertaining to group cooperation because his banish feature responds to a single problematic user's detrimental behavior. Further, Applicant argues that Thayne’s assessment of an individual’s progress and redirection of efforts to address that individual’s needs does not teach or suggest detecting changes to group dynamics pertaining to group cooperation. The examiner disagrees. It is the examiner’s position that Thayne’s banish feature is a change to group dynamics pertaining to group cooperation because who can or cannot participate in the online support group pertains to group cooperation or group dynamics. Even though his banish feature responds to a single problematic user’s behavior, said problematic user’s behavior and presence affects the group’s cooperation and dynamics. Further, Thayne’s assessments are no longer relied upon in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16.
On page 12, Applicant argues the rationale to combine the Thayne and Brynelsen fails to establish motivation for the claimed invention because it addresses a fundamentally different problem. Thayne and Brynelsen are both directed to the wellness/health of users. The motivation to modify Thayne’s online support system with Brynelsen’s web portal is to identify additional treatment parameters for particular subpopulations, compare different efficacies of differing types of support groups or coaching, or the like and allow allied health professionals or patients that have been successful in changing their lifestyle to serve as leaders to the next wave of patients coming through and was gleaned from the Brynelsen reference. See MPEP 2144(I-II).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 on page 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Brynelsen discloses the claimed limitation “the optimization including rewarding an increase to levels of group participation” as detailed in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 above. Specifically, Brynelsen discloses that a patient will also optionally have the ability to invite health coaches into the online community, with the patient typically granting and managing a support group of the patient by granting permission to individuals to whom the patient is willing to allow access to the patient’s sensor-based data. The reward is an increase to levels of group participation because there is an additional person to help the patient achieve his/her goal.
Applicant argues on page 13 that dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are allowable for the same reasons as argued for claims 1, 11, and 16. The responses above made with regards to the arguments against the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 apply with equal force to the arguments raised against the rejection of claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 is respectfully maintained.
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 NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights