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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a communication interface” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification lacks structure for this element.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 14 is 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. Based on the interpretation for the “communication interface” above, the specification lacks description for what this interface is. The specification is devoid of the structure to perform the claimed functions of this interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a communication interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification lack sufficient structure to perform the functions of this interface in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 1-10 are drawn to a method and claims 11-20 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites, a computer-implemented method for personalizing a care program for a telehealth platform, the computer-implemented method comprising:
1) displaying a sequence of questions on a1) a display of a) a user device, the sequence of questions including a plurality of personal needs questions and a plurality of questions associated with a clinical survey;
2) receiving responses from a user to each question in the sequence of questions via a2) an input device of the user device;
3) storing the responses in a3) a memory of the user device;
4) assigning a primary concern to the user based on a response to at least a first question in the sequence of questions; and
5) assigning a severity score to the user based on the responses to the clinical survey;
6) using a segmentation model to assign a recommended program to the user based on the primary concern and the severity score of the user; and
7) notifying the user of the recommended program.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) displaying a sequence of questions, the sequence of questions including a plurality of personal needs questions and a plurality of questions associated with a clinical survey, 2) receiving responses from a user to each question in the sequence of questions, 3) storing the responses, 4) assigning a primary concern to the user based on a response to at least a first question in the sequence of questions, 5) assigning a severity score to the user based on the responses to the clinical survey, 6) using a segmentation model (can be any model, not specifically limited to computer vision based on the specification) to assign a recommended program to the user based on the primary concern and the severity score of the user, and 7) notifying the user of the recommended program. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how one could assess and recommend treatment to a patient based on their feedback. Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations and is/are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-10 and 12-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 5-6, 8-10, 15-16, and 18-20 add additional, functional steps to the claims which amount to abstract idea limitations. Claims 2-4, 7, 12-14, and 17 add additional elements to the claims and these elements are further assessed below in Prong Two. Thus, depending claims 2-10 and 12-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a user device comprising a1) a display, a2) an input device, and a3) a memory, b) a processor (from claim 11), c) a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (from claim 11), d) using a trained machine learning (ML) model (from claims 2 and 12), e) training the ML model based on feedback from a healthcare provider (from claims 3 and 13), f) receiving health data from one or more health sensors (from claims 4 and 14, where 14 uses a communication interface to do this), and g) electronically scheduling the in-office appointment (from claims 7 and 17) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) user device comprising a1) a display, a2) an input device, and a3) a memory, b) a processor, c) a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, f) a communication interface, and g) electronically scheduling the in-office appointment in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic computing components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the d) using a trained machine learning (ML) model and e) training the ML model based on feedback from a healthcare provider in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using machine learning generically (see: MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Lastly, the f) receiving health data from one or more health sensors in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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 into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a user device comprising a1) a display, a2) an input device, and a3) a memory, b) a processor, c) a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, d) using a trained machine learning (ML) model, e) training the ML model based on feedback from a healthcare provider, f) receiving health data from one or more health sensors using a communication interface, and g) electronically scheduling the in-office appointment to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention notifies the user of a recommended program utilizing a) user device comprising a1) a display, a2) an input device, and a3) a memory, b) a processor, c) a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, d) using a trained machine learning (ML) model, e) training the ML model, f) a communication interface, and g) electronically scheduling the in-office appointment, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or using machine learning generically.
Lastly, the f) receiving health data from one or more health sensors in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives sensor data, and transmits the data to a system over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al.
As per claim 1, Goyal et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for personalizing a care program for a telehealth platform, the computer-implemented method comprising:
--displaying a sequence of questions on a display of a user device, (see: FIG. 6 and paragraph [0088] where there is displaying of questions on a user device) the sequence of questions including a plurality of personal needs questions and a plurality of questions associated with a clinical survey; (see: FIG. 6 and paragraph [0088] where the questions include personal needs questions (personal relationships) and questions associated with a clinical survey (emotion levels))
--receiving responses from a user to each question in the sequence of questions via an input device of the user device; (see: FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0068] and [0088] where response are being received from a member on a device)
--storing the responses in a memory of the user device; (see: paragraph [0084] where received data is stored in a member record database)
--assigning a primary concern to the user based on a response to at least a first question in the sequence of questions; (see: FIG. 6 and paragraph [0088] where the underlying mental health issue and the root causes is being confirmed, therefore the primary concern/mental health issue is being assigned based on the responses to the questionnaire) and
--assigning a severity score to the user based on the responses to the clinical survey; (see: FIG. 6 and paragraph [0088] where a severity level is being assigned for the user’s health issues based on the received data from the questionnaire)
--using a segmentation model to assign a recommended program to the user based on the primary concern and the severity score of the user; (see: FIG. 6 and paragraph [0088] where one or more treatment processes are being assigned for the user based on the primary concern (their mental health issue) and the severity score (severity level of the issue)) and
--notifying the user of the recommended program (see: paragraph [0091] where the member is informed of the updated treatment recommendation).
As per claim 4, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. further teaches wherein using the segmentation model comprises receiving health data from one or more health sensors (see: paragraph [0081] where there are health sensors which supply data to the system’s model here).
As per claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner. Goyal et al. further teaches a system for personalizing a care program for a telehealth platform, the system comprising:
--a processor; (see: paragraph [0075] where there is a processor) and
--a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by the processor, (see: paragraph [0066] where there is a computer with memory) cause the processor to perform functions.
As per claim 14, Goyal et al. teaches the system of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. Goyal et al. further teaches:
--a communication interface to receive health data from one or more health sensors, (see: paragraph [0081] where there are health sensors which send data here. The system receives this health data via a communication interface) and wherein the segmentation model uses the health data from the one or more health sensors (see: paragraphs [0081] and [0085] where there is usage of this health data by the system’s model here).
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,327,697 to Stein et al.
As per claim 2, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein using the segmentation model comprises using a trained machine learning (ML) model.
Stein et al. teaches:
--wherein using the segmentation model comprises using a trained machine learning (ML) model (see: claim 1 where there is a segmentation model which is trained based on a machine learning model/algorithm).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein using the segmentation model comprises using a trained machine learning (ML) model as taught by Stein et al. in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving the model (see: column 8, lines 5-22 of Stein et al.).
As per claim 3, Goyal et al. and Stein et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Stein et al. further teaches training the ML model based on feedback from a health care provider (see: column 4, lines 30-39 and column 8, lines 5-22 where there is feedback which is used to train the model).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is similar to claim 2 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0197232 to Khandwalla et al.
As per claim 5, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--displaying at least one interactive page on the user device that includes self-guided content associated with the recommended program.
Khandwalla et al. teaches:
--displaying at least one interactive page on the user device that includes self-guided content associated with the recommended program (see: paragraphs [0071] and [0188] where there is at least one interactive webpage that is used to display content to the user, where the content is self-guided instructional videos).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying at least one interactive page on the user device that includes self-guided content associated with the recommended program as taught by Khandwalla et al. in the method of Goyal et al. since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Goyal et al. already teaches presenting recommendation information thus one could add more recommendation information as taught by Khandwalla et al. and the same functionality of Goyal et al. of the recommendation information being displayed would be maintained, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 15, claim 15 is similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. 2024/0296946 to Thomas et al.
As per claim 6, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--displaying a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to begin a communication session with a health care provider; and
--in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, initiating the communication session with the health care provider.
Thomas et al. teaches:
--displaying a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to begin a communication session with a health care provider; (see: FIG. 11 and paragraph [0058] where there is displaying a prompt with a selectable option to start a call/communication session) and
--in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, initiating the communication session with the health care provider (see: FIG. 11 and paragraph [0058] where in response to selecting the call option a communication session is initiated).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to display a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to begin a communication session with a health care provider and in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, initiating the communication session with the health care provider as taught by Thomas et al. in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving healthcare delivery (see: paragraph [0004] of Thomas et al.).
As per claim 16, claim 16 is similar to claim 6 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0053469 to Boswell et al.
As per claim 7, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--displaying a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to electronically schedule an in-office appointment with a health care provider; and
--in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, electronically scheduling the in-office appointment with the health care provider.
Boswell et al. teaches:
--displaying a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to electronically schedule an in-office appointment with a health care provider; (see: FIG. 12 and paragraph [0061] where there is displaying of a prompt to schedule an appointment) and
--in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, electronically scheduling the in-office appointment with the health care provider (see: FIG. 12 and paragraph [0061] where there is scheduling of an appointment in response to selection of a selectable option to create an appointment).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to display a prompt on the display that includes a selectable option to electronically schedule an in-office appointment with a health care provider and in response to selection by the user of the selectable option, electronically scheduling the in-office appointment with the health care provider as taught by Boswell et al. in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving outcomes for a population (see: paragraph [0001] of Boswell et al.).
As per claim 17, claim 17 is similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. 2021/0287806 to Rajasekhar et al.
As per claim 8, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein displaying the sequence of questions comprises:
--ordering at least a portion of the sequence of questions based on a response to at least one earlier question in the sequence of questions.
Rajasekhar et al. teaches:
--ordering at least a portion of the sequence of questions based on a response to at least one earlier question in the sequence of questions (see: paragraph [0054] where there is a dynamic questionnaire which involves ordering of questions).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to order at least a portion of the sequence of questions based on a response to at least one earlier question in the sequence of questions as taught by Rajasekhar et al. in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving the accuracy of the patient assessments (see: paragraph [0047] of Rajasekhar et al.).
As per claim 18, claim 18 is similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. 2022/0409050 to Mcdaid.
As per claim 9, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--computing a compliance score based on adherence by the user to the recommended program; and
--prompting the user to schedule a communication session with a healthcare provider when the compliance score falls below a predetermined threshold.
Mcdaid teaches:
--computing a compliance score based on adherence by the user to the recommended program; (see: paragraphs [0210] and [0240] where there is computation of a compliance score based on adherence with a treatment) and
--prompting the user to schedule a communication session with a healthcare provider when the compliance score falls below a predetermined threshold (see: paragraphs [0210] and [0240] where there is prompting to schedule a call with the provider based on the compliance score being lower than a threshold).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to compute a compliance score based on adherence by the user to the recommended program and prompt the user to schedule a communication session with a healthcare provider when the compliance score falls below a predetermined threshold as taught by Mcdaid in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving patient monitoring (see: paragraph [0013] of Mcdaid).
As per claim 19, claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0193276 to Goyal et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,327,697 to Stein et al.
As per claim 10, Goyal et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Goyal et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--prompting the user to begin a communication session with a healthcare provider responsive to the responses of the user to the clinical survey and prior to assigning the user the recommended program.
Boucher et al. teaches:
--prompting the user to begin a communication session with a healthcare provider responsive to the responses of the user to the clinical survey and prior to assigning the user the recommended program (see: paragraph [0411] where there is a questionnaire used to collect information. Also see: paragraphs [0009] and [0176] where there is prompting for an additional information to be collected using a live-chat feature. This would be before a recommendation is provided as explained in paragraph [0460]).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to prompt the user to begin a communication session with a healthcare provider responsive to the responses of the user to the clinical survey and prior to assigning the user the recommended program as taught by Boucher et al. in the method as taught by Goyal et al. with the motivation(s) of improving the provision of healthcare (see: paragraph [0011] of Boucher et al.).
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights