Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on August 7, 2023.
2. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-3 and 5-20 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent Claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea comprising a server establishing communication with a client device to deliver scheduled messages, monitoring user response events triggered by message presentation, and dynamically adjusting subsequent message delivery timing based on the observed responses. The client device participates by detecting and reporting user engagement events, enabling the server to optimize message scheduling through continuous feedback. This creates an adaptive system where message timing evolves based on real-time user interactions.
Independent Claim 1 recites “establish a data connection; identify, for the user (i) a plurality of messages to transmit for presentation and (ii) a plurality of times at which to transmit the corresponding plurality of messages; transmit, a first message of the plurality of messages at a first time of the plurality of times; receive, one or more response data packets identifying an event detected responsive to the presentation of the first message; and modify, using the one or more response data packets, a second time of the plurality of times for transmission of a second message of the plurality of messages; and transmit, the second message at the second time for presentation.”
Independent Claim 9 recites “establish a data connection; receive, a first message of a plurality of messages at a first time of a plurality of times; monitor for an event responsive to the presentation of the first message; and transmit, one or more response data packets identifying the event, to cause the one or more response data packets to modify a second time of the plurality of time for transmission of a second message of the plurality of messages.”
Independent Claim 15 recites “establishing, a data connection; identifying, for the user, (i) a plurality of messages to transmit for presentation and (ii) a plurality of times at which to transmit the corresponding plurality of messages; transmitting, a first message of the plurality of messages at a first time of the plurality of times; receiving, one or more response data packets identifying an event detected in response to the presentation of the first message; and modifying, using the one or more response data packets, a second time of the plurality of time for transmission of a second message of the plurality of messages.”
The limitations of Claims 1, 9 and 15, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a Mental Process which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity which are concepts performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people (including fundamental economic principles, commercial or legal interactions, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, other than reciting, “server, processors, memory, a network with an application, client device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or interactions between people. For example, but for the “at least one server having one or more processors coupled with memory” language, “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually categorizing a plurality of messages to transmit to the client device for presentation via the application to the user. Similarly, the transmitting, a first message of the plurality of messages at a first time of the plurality of times, covers performance of the limitation being performed in the mind and/or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation being performed in the mind and/or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a “server, processors, memory, a network with an application, client device” to perform all of the “obtaining, transforming, parsing, determining, transforming, selecting and storing” steps. The “server, processors, memory, a network with an application, client device” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing computer-executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 has the following additional elements (i.e., server, processors, memory, a network with an application, client device). Claim 9 has the following additional elements (i.e., a client device, processors, memory, server). Claim 15 has the following additional elements (i.e., server, application on a client device). Looking to the specification, these components are described at a high level of generality (see at least ¶ 68 and ¶ 72; The computer system 1100 can be any workstation, telephone, desktop computer, laptop or notebook computer, netbook, ULTRABOOK, tablet, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, smartphone or other portable telecommunications device, media playing device, a gaming system, mobile computing device, or any other type and/or form of computing, telecommunications or media device that is capable of communication. The computer system 1100 has sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform the operations described herein. In some embodiments, the computing device 1100 may have different processors, operating systems, and input devices consistent with the device. The Samsung GALAXY smartphones, e.g., operate under the control of Android operating system developed by Google, Inc. GALAXY smartphones receive input via a touch interface). The use of a general-purpose computer, taken alone, does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14 and 16-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology). These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Numbering of claims are inaccurate. There are 19 claims because claim number 4 was skipped in numbering. To move prosecution forward, Examiner will treat claim 4 as a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 20100205008 A1 to Hua et al. in view of Pat. No.: US 8015033 B2 to Brown.
As per Claim 1, Hua et al. teaches a system for secure transmissions of data packets to remote devices in networked environments, comprising:
-- at least one server having one or more processors coupled with memory (see Hua et al. paragraphs 41-42; The methods and apparatus described and contemplated above may be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component (e.g., as a data server), or that includes a middleware component (e.g., an application server), or that includes a front-end component (e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user may interact with an implementation of the subject matter of Appendix A), or any combination of such back-end, middleware, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of communication networks include a local area network ("LAN"), a wide area network ("WAN"), and the Internet.), configured to:
-- establish a data connection over a network with an application executing on a client device associated with a user (see Hua et al. paragraphs 41-42; The methods and apparatus described and contemplated above may be implemented in a computing system that includes a back-end component (e.g., as a data server), or that includes a middleware component (e.g., an application server), or that includes a front-end component (e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user may interact with an implementation of the subject matter of Appendix A), or any combination of such back-end, middleware, or front-end components. The components of the system may be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., a communication network). Examples of communication networks include a local area network ("LAN"), a wide area network ("WAN"), and the Internet.);
-- identify, for the user of the client device, (i) a plurality of messages to transmit to the client device for presentation via the application to the user and (ii) a plurality of times at which to transmit the corresponding plurality of messages (see Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The computerized method 400 may also include generating a set of actions 420 that includes at least one of a plurality of messages sent to the person in response to the value of the treatment score generated for the person. The set of actions of the computerized method 400 may also a determination of a channel for delivery of the at least one message. In some implementations, the set of actions includes selection of the at least one message from a plurality of messages. In still another variation, the set of actions includes a frequency for delivery of a plurality of messages.);
-- transmit, via the data connection to the client device, a first message of the plurality of messages at a first time of the plurality of times (see Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The computerized method 400 may also include generating a set of actions 420 that includes at least one of a plurality of messages sent to the person in response to the value of the treatment score generated for the person. The set of actions of the computerized method 400 may also a determination of a channel for delivery of the at least one message. In some implementations, the set of actions includes selection of the at least one message from a plurality of messages. In still another variation, the set of actions includes a frequency for delivery of a plurality of messages.); and
-- modify, using the one or more response data packets, a second time of the plurality of times for transmission of a second message of the plurality of messages to the client device (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.); and
-- transmit, via the data connection to the client device, the second message at the second time for presentation via the application (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
Hua et al. fails to explicitly teach: receive, via the data connection from the client device, one or more response data packets identifying an event detected responsive to the presentation of the first message via the application.
Brown teaches a system 100 to encourage and monitor compliance with a treatment regimen using a protocol or other intelligent message which acts in place of a service provider to collect and impart information relevant to the treatment regimen, including a patient device 110, a pharmacist device 140, a medical professional device 150, and a server device 160, said devices being coupled using a communication network 130, and a portable device 112 which can be coupled to the patient device 110 to receive information regarding the treatment regimen and send feedback from the patient 111 responsive thereto.
Brown further teaches the patient 111 performs the indicated act and enters a message into the portable device 112 confirming performance of the act using the patient feedback input element 118. Operation of the patient feedback input element 118 causes the processor chip 115 to cancel the reminder message, check the clock 116, and record the time and fact of performance in the memory 114. In a first preferred embodiment, the patient 111 also enters additional information relevant to monitoring and evaluating the treatment regimen in response to queries by the presentation element 117 in accordance with the treatment regimen and protocol (see Brown Figs 1-3; Col 3 || 61-97, Col 4 || 1-4 and Col 5 || 17-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include systems/methods as taught by reference Brown within the systems/methods as taught by reference Hua et al. with the motivation of providing a portable system to monitor and encourage compliance, and facilitate data collection, thereby patients are restricted as little as possible regarding their activities and movements (see Brown Col 1 || 55-58).
As per Claim 2, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to:
-- determine, based on the one or more response data packets, a window of time in which to transmit a second message of the plurality of messages to the client device to increase a likelihood of the user towards achieving an endpoint; and modify the second time of the plurality of times to be within the window of time (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to transmit, via the data connection while established to the client device, the plurality of messages and the plurality of times to cause the application to present a third message of the plurality of messages at a third time, when the client device is not connected with the at least one server (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to receive the one or more response data packets including a status identifier indicating whether the user performed an action to address a condition of the user, in response to the presentation of the first message via the application (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to transmit the first message of the plurality of messages to the client device for presentation via the application to induce the user to perform an action towards achieving an endpoint associated with a condition of the user (see Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The computerized method 400 may also include generating a set of actions 420 that includes at least one of a plurality of messages sent to the person in response to the value of the treatment score generated for the person. The set of actions of the computerized method 400 may also a determination of a channel for delivery of the at least one message. In some implementations, the set of actions includes selection of the at least one message from a plurality of messages. In still another variation, the set of actions includes a frequency for delivery of a plurality of messages.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to select, from the plurality of messages, the first messages based on a likelihood of the user towards achieving an endpoint in response to the presentation of the first message (see Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The computerized method 400 may also include generating a set of actions 420 that includes at least one of a plurality of messages sent to the person in response to the value of the treatment score generated for the person. The set of actions of the computerized method 400 may also a determination of a channel for delivery of the at least one message. In some implementations, the set of actions includes selection of the at least one message from a plurality of messages. In still another variation, the set of actions includes a frequency for delivery of a plurality of messages. The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one server is further configured to maintain, using the one or more response data packets, a transaction log comprising a plurality of records, each of the plurality of records to identify a respective event in response to a representation of a respective message at a respective time instance (see Hua et al. paragraph 29; Scoring and delivering the scores also requires additional steps to keep the data secure. The pharmaceutical company identifies record(s) to be scored 530. The records may come from existing patient base or marketing initiatives. Client creates and attaches a unique identifier to each record 532, and then transmits records to the modeling and scoring company in a secure manner for batch scoring 534. Any required commercially available information can be appended to records 536. The model is then executed to score each record 538. A new record is created that contains only the score and the unique identifier (score record) 540, and this is transmitted (score plus unique identifier) to the pharmaceutical company in a secure manner 542. Of course, the above applications assume that there is a plurality of records. It should be understood that the same process can be applied for use with one record.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Claim 9 is directed to a system for communicating with remote services in networked environments. Claim 9 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claim 1 as taught by Hua et al. and Brown. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim(s) 1 respectively.
As per Claim 10, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 8, wherein the client device is further configured to receive, from the at least one server, the second message of the plurality of messages at the second time within a window of time determined using the one or more response data packets to increase a likelihood of the user towards achieving an endpoint (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 8, wherein the client device is further configured to:
-- receive, via the data connection while established from the at least one server, the plurality of messages and the plurality of times; and present a third message of the plurality of messages at a third time of the plurality of times when the client device is not connected with the at least one server (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29; The treatment score can be associated with one of a plurality of sets of messages. The messages can correlate to disjoint ranges of the treatment score with each set of messages providing sequential guidance to the individual to increase a likelihood of the individual adhering to the medical treatment. Each set of messages can further have an associating timeline for delivery so messages in the set can be individually transmitted messages based on the timeline for delivery.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 8, wherein the client device is further configured to present the first message of the plurality of messages to induce the user to perform an action towards achieving an endpoint associated with a condition of the user (Hua et al. paragraphs 6, 8 and 27-29).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 8, wherein the client device is further configured to transmit, via the communication channel, the one or more response data packets including a status identifier indicating whether the user performed an action to address a condition of the user, in response to the presentation of the first message via the client device (see Brown Figs 1-3; Col 3 || 61-97, Col 4 || 1-4 and Col 5 || 17-27).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, Hua et al. and Brown teach the system of claim 8, wherein the client device is further configured to receive the first message selected by the server from the plurality of messages based on a likelihood of the user towards achieving an endpoint in response to the presentation of the first message.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Hua et al. and Brown are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claims 15-20, Claims 15-20 are directed to a method of communicating with remote devices. Claims 15-20 recite the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 as taught by Hua et al. and Brown. Claims 15-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150169827 A1; A system for providing a patient list manager includes a client device for point of care capture and access of patient data and a server for providing cloud based hosting. One or more modules can leverage the patient data to help users improve and facilitate the efficiency and safety of patient management, diagnostic imaging management, clinical work flows, charge capture, revenue cycle management, accreditation reporting, quality and outcomes monitoring and improvement, among other things.
US 20140207048 A1; Optimized bio-synchronous drug delivery begins with establishing a bio-synchronous treatment protocol that incorporates individual temporal and innate biological characteristics into a pharmacological treatment plan. The bio-synchronous treatment protocol is thereafter initiated using bioactive agent delivery device. Bio-synchronous drug delivery includes continual collection of patient data such as physical, psychological, temporal and environmental characteristics. This data is analyzed so to not only determine an initial treatment protocol but to also determining whether modification to the ongoing bio-synchronous treatment protocol is required. And, responsive to determining a modification is required the system modifies the bio-synchronous treatment protocol and use of delivery device. These modifications and treatment protocols can include reactive and proactive psychological support supplied to the patient in a variety of formats.
US 8529409 B1; Systems and methods presented herein generally provide for portable personalized training programs. More specifically, a mobile device (e.g., MP3 players, iPods, video game players, PDAs, cell phones, etc.) may provide to a user of the device a personalized physical fitness training program that enables the user to maintain physical fitness. In this regard, a physical fitness training program may be configured as one or more software modules wherein associated audio and video segments allow a user to view various physical fitness related training routines on the mobile device. The physical fitness training program may operably control these audio and video segments in a manner that allows the user to personalize a physical fitness routine. Such systems and methods may also have advantages and other types of personalized instruction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights