DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1,3-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) comprising:
a user's-wellbeing-improving-controller (UWIC) communicatively coupled to a protocol- database ("PDB") that is configured to store one or more protocols;
one or more sense-generators (SenGs) configured to stimulate one or more senses of a current user; and
one or more types of sensors (ToS),wherein the UWIC is configured to activate the one or more SenGs according to a protocol obtained from the PDB, wherein the protocol is related to a current mode of the current user.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding the step of determining that a protocol is related to a mode of a user, this step does not require any hardware because the claim does not specifically recite that the computer processes any data related to the user’s mode. As such, this step may be performed with a computer, or even without any hardware at all.
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the step of determining a treatment protocol has been typically performed by human beings when treating a patient, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the step of determining a treatment protocol may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper, e.g. a human looking at the protocol and thinking about the user’s mode.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 3, 11, 20 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
a user's-wellbeing-improving-controller (UWIC) communicatively coupled to a protocol- database ("PDB") that is configured to store one or more protocols;
one or more sense-generators (SenGs) configured to stimulate one or more senses of a current user; and
one or more types of sensors (ToS),wherein the UWIC is configured to activate the one or more SenGs according to a protocol obtained from the PDB.
The additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se.
Regarding the UWIC, when read in light of the Specification as originally filed on 10 October 2022 in parent application 63414878 (hereafter referred to as “the Provisional Specification”) by one of ordinary skill in the art, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding the step of communicating with a UWIC and PDB and storing data on a PDB, these limitations merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Regarding the ToS, this limitation generally link(s) the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because the limitation does not sense any data that would be materially used in the claim. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding the SenG, the Provisional Specification discloses that the SenG may be any type of sensor capable of providing a sensory response to the user, without limitation (page 9 paragraph 0035). Accordingly, this limitation merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 4 reciting activating the SenG, claim(s) 5 reciting a biosensor, claim(s) 6 reciting a pulse sensor, claim(s) 7 reciting a neuro sensor, claim(s) 8 reciting a brain wave sensor, claim(s) 9 reciting cloud communication, claim(s) 10-11 reciting a server and plurality of storage volume for data storage, additional limitation(s) which add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea).
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, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the step of communicating with the WIC, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Regarding the PDB, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Regarding the SenG, Lyster (20020193848) discloses that a device capable of administering a shock to the patient amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 1 paragraph 0002).
Regarding the sensors, Lyster discloses that a heart rate sensor amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 4 paragraph 0038).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 4 reciting activating the SenG, Lyster disclosing a device capable of administering a shock to the patient amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 1 paragraph 0002) claim(s) 5 reciting a biosensor, Lyster disclosing that a heart rate sensor amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 4 paragraph 0038) claim(s) 6 reciting a pulse sensor, Lyster disclosing that a pulse rate sensor is WURC (page 2 paragraph 0016), claim(s) 7 reciting a neuro sensor, claim(s) 8 reciting a brain wave sensor, Official Notice is taken that a muscle tension sensor and neuro sensor are WURC in the pertinent arts (and specifically taken to be Applicant Admitted Prior Art because Applicant failed to properly traverse the previously noticed fact (see below), claim(s) 9 reciting cloud communication, Periyasamy (20210098110) disclosing that a cloud is WURC (page 3-4 paragraph 0045-0046), claim(s) 10-11 reciting a server and plurality of storage volume for data storage, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
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.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions that when executed cause a processor at a user's-wellbeing-improving- system (UWIS):
i. to activate a sense-generator (SenG) from one or more SenGs according to a protocol of a wellbeing treatment such that a sensory stimulation is provided by the activated SenG to a current user subjected to the wellbeing treatment, wherein the protocol is obtained from a protocol-database communicatively coupled to the processor and is related to a current mode of the current user;
ii. to read an indication from a sensor from one or more types-of-Sensors ("ToS") wherein at least one of the one or more ToS comprises a bio sensor; and
iii. based at least in part of the indication of the one or more ToS, to modify the wellbeing treatment protocol.
Step 1:
The claim as a whole falls within at least one statutory category, i.e. a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong One:
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because the step of determining a treatment protocol has been typically performed by human beings when treating a patient, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)
The highlighted portion, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under “Mental processes”.
But for a generic computer recited with a high level of generality in a post hoc manner to implement the abstract idea, the step of determining a treatment protocol may be performed in the human mind either mentally or with pen and paper.
Accordingly, these limitations have been found to be directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The different categories of abstract ideas are being considered together as one single abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim(s) 13-16 reciting limitations further defining the abstract idea, which may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components, and/or may be a method of managing relationship or interactions between people).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s), if any:
i. to activate a sense-generator (SenG) from one or more SenGs according to a protocol of a wellbeing treatment such that a sensory stimulation is provided by the activated SenG to a current user subjected to the wellbeing treatment, wherein the protocol is obtained from a protocol-database communicatively coupled to the processor and is related to a current mode of the current user;
ii. to read an indication from a sensor from one or more types-of-Sensors ("ToS") wherein at least one of the one or more ToS comprises a bio sensor; and
Regarding the processor, when read in light of the Provisional Specification (page 7 paragraph 0028 illustrating many types of computers, to include generic computers) by one of ordinary skill in the art, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations amount(s) to mere instructions to apply an exception (invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding the SenG, the Provisional Specification discloses that the SenG may be any type of sensor capable of providing a sensory response to the user, without limitation (page 9 paragraph 0035). Accordingly, this limitation merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Regarding the ToS, this limitation generally link(s) the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because the limitation does not sense any data that would be materially used in the claim. MPEP 2106.05(h))
Regarding the step of communicating with a UWIC and PDB and storing data on a PDB, these limitations merely add(s) insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application). MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claim(s) recite(s) additional subject matter which amount to limitation(s) consistent with the additional element(s) in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 13-14, 16 reciting activating a SenG; claim 15 reciting the ToS reading data; claim(s) 17 reciting sending and receiving data by a sensor; claims 18-19 reciting various types of sensors; claim(s) 18 reciting a cloud, insignificant extrasolution activity which amounts to mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated).
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, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements, as discussed above and incorporated herein, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking to a particular technological environment using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the step of data communicating, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in particular fields (e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Regarding the PDB, this limitation amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); e.g. storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Regarding the SenG, Lyster discloses that a device capable of administering a shock to the patient amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 1 paragraph 0002).
Regarding the sensors, Lyster discloses that a heart rate sensor amount(s) to element(s) that have been recognized as WURC activity in particular fields (page 4 paragraph 0038).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim(s) 13-14, 16 reciting activating a SenG, the Provisional Specification indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (page 9 paragraph 0035 disclosing various types of SenG without particulars [“etc.”]); claim 15 reciting the ToS reading data, claims 18-19 reciting various types of sensors, (page 10 paragraph 0038 disclosing various types of ToS without particulars [“well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and will not be further disclosed”], see also page 2 paragraph 0006); claim(s) 17 reciting sending and receiving data by a sensor, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); see also section above with respect to Lyster, Periyasamy, and previously noticed facts indicating evidence of WURC).
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.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lyster.
Claim 1: Lyster discloses:
A user's (Abstract illustrating a patient) -wellbeing-improving (Abstract illustrating treating a patient [considered to be a form of improving “wellbeing”]) -system (UWIS) (Figure 1 illustrating a system) comprising:
a user's-wellbeing-improving-controller (UWIC) (Figure 1 label 12 illustrating a controller, page 3 paragraph 0035 illustrating the controller capable of operating an energy delivery system to treat the patient) communicatively coupled to a protocol-database ("PDB") (page 2 paragraph 0016 illustrating treatment profiles that may include shocking or pharmaceutical agents [considered to be a form of PDB) that is configured to store one or more protocols (page 3 paragraph 0030 illustrating the controller controlling the energy delivery system to deliver a therapeutic energy pulse according to a protocol);
one or more sense-generators (SenGs) configured to stimulate one or more senses of a current user (Figure 1 label 14, page 4 paragraph 0039 illustrating an energy delivery system capable of delivering a therapeutic energy pulse to the patient [considered to be a form of “SenG”]); and
one or more types of sensors (ToS) (Figure 1 label 24, page 4 paragraph 0038 illustrating the patient monitor capable of monitoring patient heart rhythm [considered to be a form of “ToS”]),wherein the UWIC is configured to activate the one or more SenGs according to a protocol obtained from the PDB, wherein the protocol is related to a current mode of the current user (page 3 paragraph 0030 illustrating the controller controlling the energy delivery system to deliver a therapeutic energy pulse according to a protocol).
Claim 3: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 2, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more protocols defines a sequence of activating the one or more SenGs (page 1 paragraph 0006 illustrating defining a series of shocks to deliver to the patient [considered to be a form of “sequence”]).
Claim 4: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 3, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein activating the one or more SenGs comprises a period of activating a SenG from the one or more SenGs (page 5 paragraph 0052 illustrating delivering treatment over a period of time).
Claim 5: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein the one or more ToSs comprises at least one bio sensor (page 4 paragraph 0038 illustrating the patient monitor capable of monitoring patient heart rhythm [considered to be a form of “bio sensor”]).
Claim 6: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 5, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises heart pulse rate sensor (page 2 paragraph 0016 illustrating measuring heart pulse rate parameter).
Claim 12: Lyster discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions that when executed cause a processor (page 3 paragraph 0025 illustrating a processor and associated software code) at a user's (Abstract illustrating a patient) -wellbeing-improving (Abstract illustrating treating a patient [considered to be a form of improving “wellbeing”]) -system (UWIS) (Figure 1 illustrating a system):
i. to activate a sense-generator (SenG) from one or more SenGs according to a protocol of a wellbeing treatment (Figure 1 label 14, page 4 paragraph 0039 illustrating an energy delivery system capable of delivering a therapeutic energy pulse to the patient [considered to be a form of “SenG”], page 3 paragraph 0030 illustrating the controller controlling the energy delivery system to deliver a therapeutic energy pulse according to a protocol) such that a sensory stimulation is provided by the activated SenG to a current user subjected to the wellbeing treatment (Figure 1 label 14, page 4 paragraph 0039 illustrating an energy pulse that is perceived by the patient and elicits a physiological response), wherein the protocol is obtained from a protocol-database communicatively coupled to the processor and is related to a current mode of the current user (page 3 paragraph 0030 illustrating the controller controlling the energy delivery system to deliver a therapeutic energy pulse according to a protocol);
ii. to read an indication from a sensor from one or more types-of-Sensors ("ToS") (Figure 1 label 24, page 4 paragraph 0038 illustrating the patient monitor capable of monitoring patient heart rhythm [considered to be a form of “ToS”])wherein at least one of the one or more ToS comprises a bio sensor (page 4 paragraph 0038 illustrating the patient monitor capable of monitoring patient heart rhythm [considered to be a form of “bio sensor”]); and
iii. based at least in part of the indication of the one or more ToS, to modify the wellbeing treatment protocol (page 3 paragraph 0030 illustrating the controller controlling the energy delivery system to deliver a therapeutic energy pulse according to a protocol and adjusting to the patient’s readings).
Claim(s) 13 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 3 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim 14: Lyster discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable storage device of claim 13, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein activating the one or more SenGs comprises changing the setting of a SenG from the one or more SenGs looking for an optimal wellbeing that is better than the wellbeing that was obtained when the setting of the SenG from the one or more SenGs is according to the protocol (page 2 paragraph 0010 illustrating using patient readings to improve the treatment for the patient).
Claim 15: Lyster discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable storage device of claim 14, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein the wellbeing is determined based on reading the indication from the one or more ToSs (page 2 paragraph 0011 illustrating using the patient parameters to adjust the treatment).
Claim 16: Lyster discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable storage device of claim 14, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein the activating the one or more SenGs further comprises updating the protocol to create an updated protocol by replacing the setting of the SenG from the one or more SenGs with the setting that is associated with the optimal wellbeing (page 2 paragraph 0011 illustrating using the patient parameters to adjust the treatment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyster in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
It is noted that the official notice taken in the previous Office Action is taken to be AAPA because Applicant failed to adequately traverse Examiner's assertion.
Claim 7: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster does not disclose:
wherein the one or more ToSs comprises at least one neuro sensor.
AAPA discloses that a muscle tension sensor is old and well known in the art (see also the Provisional Specification page 10 paragraph 0038 admitting that a body tension sensor is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the muscle tension sensor of the AAPA within the treatment system of Lyster with the motivation of improving patient care by using well known data collection techniques to provide better treatments to a patient who may be tensing the heart or other muscles.
Claim 8: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 7, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster does not disclose:
wherein the at least one neuro sensor comprises sensor that measure brain waves.
AAPA discloses that a brain wave sensor is old and well known in the art (see also the Provisional Specification page 10 paragraph 0038 admitting that a brain wave sensor is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the brain wave sensor of the AAPA within the treatment system of Lyster with the motivation of improving patient care by using well known data collection techniques to provide better treatments to a patient who may be experiencing abnormal brain activities.
Claim(s) 19 recite(s) substantially similar limitations as those of claim(s) 7 above, and are therefore rejected for substantially similar rationale as applied above, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 9-11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyster in view of Periyasamy (20210098110).
Claim 9: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster does not disclose:
wherein the (UWIS) is configured to communicate with a wellbeing-improving cloud (WIC).
Periyasamy discloses:
wherein the (UWIS) is configured to communicate with a wellbeing-improving cloud (WIC) (page 3-4 paragraph 0045-0046 illustrating sending data to a cloud).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cloud of Periyasamy within the treatment system of Lyster with the motivation of improving patient care by using the cloud to improve data security for the patient (Lyster; page 2 paragraph 0007).
Claim 10: Lyster in view of Periyasamy disclose:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) of claim 9, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein the WIC comprises the PDB (as discussed above and incorporated herein) and:
Lyster does not disclose:
a wellbeing server (WS);
a cloud-communication-module (CCM);
a cloud-storage-volume (CSV).
Periyasamy discloses:
a wellbeing server (WS) (page 2 paragraph 0007 illustrating a cloud server);
a cloud-communication-module (CCM) (Figure 1, page 3-4 paragraph 0045 illustrating computer components capable of communicating with a cloud);
a cloud-storage-volume (CSV) (page 4 paragraph 0046 illustrating a cloud storage).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cloud of Periyasamy within the treatment system of Lyster in view of Periyasamy with the motivation of improving patient care by using the cloud to improve data security for the patient (Lyster; page 2 paragraph 0007).
Claim 11: Lyster in view of Periyasamy disclose:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system of claim 10, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster further discloses:
wherein
Lyster does not disclose:
the WS.
Periyasamy discloses:
the WS (page 2 paragraph 0007 illustrating a cloud server).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cloud of Periyasamy within the treatment system of Lyster in view of Periyasamy with the motivation of improving patient care by using the cloud to improve data security for the patient (Lyster; page 2 paragraph 0007).
Claim 17: Lyster discloses:
The non-transitory computer readable storage device of claim 16, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster does not disclose:
wherein the updated protocol is sent toward a wellbeing server within a wellbeing improving cloud (“WIC”).
Periyasamy discloses:
wherein the updated protocol is sent toward a wellbeing server within a wellbeing improving cloud (“WIC”) (page 2 paragraph 0007 illustrating a cloud server).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cloud of Periyasamy within the treatment system of Lyster with the motivation of improving patient care by using the cloud to improve data security for the patient (Lyster; page 2 paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyster in view of case law.
Claim 20: Lyster discloses:
The user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) of claim 1, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Lyster does not disclose:
wherein the current mode comprises a mode selected from a group of modes consisting of after-work, after- exercising, during-exercising, after-dinner, and after physical activity.
As per the limitation “mode” identifier, this limitation appears to merely describe the nature of the information that constitutes the descriptive name of each mode; however, these limitations do not impose any functional limitation on how each mode would be processed by the computer in a material sense, or even if the mode is processed by computer (see claim 1 analysis). Such mere descriptions of data are not entitled to patentable weight unless the information functionally affects, or otherwise alters, the manner in which the claimed method is performed. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1888 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Here, the “mode" identifier as recited does not affect nor in any way alter the manner in which the claimed method is performed.
As such, the claimed limitations constitute non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied on to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on 10 October 2025, Applicant makes numerous arguments. Examiner will address these arguments in the order presented.
On page 5 Applicant expresses confusion regarding how a dependent claim would be ineligible under Section 101 while a parent claim is eligible.
As a preliminary matter, each claim is considered on its own merits regardless of the claim’s dependency. Otherwise, a base claim containing a generic computer would be found eligible, but a dependent claim that introduces an abstract idea without significantly more would be found eligible for mere dependency on a base claim containing a generic computer without significantly more. This clearly contravenes current case law under the Alice/Mayo two-part framework and Office policies and procedures.
Examiners should examine each claim for eligibility separately, based on the particular elements recited therein. Claims should not be judged to automatically stand or fall with similar claims in an application. MPEP 2106.04(d)(II)
Nevertheless, claim 1 is now presently rejected under Section 101 based on the amendment thereto, and thereby rendering moot Applicant’s concern.
On page 5 Applicant argues that the ability to store data in a DB renders the claim outside of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein, the usage of a DB would be an additional element, and the highlighted portions of claim 1 (namely the determination of a protocol and associated mode) would still be found to be directed towards an abstract idea, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
On page 5 Applicant argues further features of claim 12 that would render the claims eligible (such as sensors, a network, a processor, a database, and associated functionality).
While Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, as discussed in the section above and incorporated herein, the argued features are found to be directed towards additional elements that are directed towards mere insignificant extrasolution activity, as discussed above and incorporated herein.
On page 7 Applicant argues that Lyster is not analogous art.
Because Lyster was applied under Section 102(a), Lyster need not be analogous art.
Nevertheless, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lyster treats a patient by using an electrotherapy device, as acknowledged by Applicant in making the argument, which is both in the same field of endeavor as well being pertinent to Applicant’s problem.
In making this argument, Applicant asserts a definition of “wellbeing” as dealing with mental and emotional health, rather than physical operations of a patient’s heart.
It is noted that the reference cited by Applicant has not been provided, and is not entered and considered.
Nevertheless, Examiner respectfully and fully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the WHO-5 deals specifically with “mental” well-being, and that such disclosure does not amount to a controlling definition of “well-being” being limited to emotional/mental.
While Applicant’s argument has been fully considered, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., mental/emotion well-being) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, Examiner respectfully submits that a heart condition could severely affect a patient’s emotional and mental health, as is recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the heart treatment system of Lyster fully discloses a form of “well-being” treatment.
On page 7 Applicant argues that Lyster does not disclose SenGs.
Neither the claims nor the Specification as originally filed provides a controlling definition for SenGs. As can be best determined, the Provisional Specification merely provides exemplary embodiments of SenGs as anything that could be perceived by the patient, without limitation (page 9 paragraph 0035).
Accordingly, a shock to the heart could certainly be sensed by the patient and elicit a physiological response, as disclosed by Lyster.
Therefore, Lyster fully discloses the claimed SenGs.
While Applicant’s argument has been carefully and fully considered, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., smell, tone) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 7-8 Applicant argues that the applied art do not disclose various modes.
As discussed in the section above and incorporated herein, claim 1 does not require that a computer process data for a mode. Instead, the claim merely requires that a protocol be “related” to a mode.
Accordingly, this mode can be determined outside of the computer, such as by human perception and judgment.
While Applicant’s argument has been fully and carefully considered, Applicant’s attention is directed towards the rejection of claim 20 above under Section 103(a). Namely, the modes do not functionally limit the operation of the claimed system because the system does not materially make use of the various modes in any particular manner; the system does not even store or process any data related to the claimed modes.
Applicant’s argument on page 8 merely rehash arguments previously addressed above, and incorporated herein.
On page 9 Applicant argues that the sensors of claims 7-8 may be known, but they are recited as being utilized with a previously recited well-being improving system.
While Applicant’s arguments have been fully and carefully considered, they do not rebut the prima facie presumption that the various types of known sensors may be used to diagnose a patient for treatment.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.03(C) reads as follows:
“To adequately traverse such a finding [of Official Notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.”
Accordingly, Applicant’s traversal (or lack thereof) is not deemed adequate, and the previous noticed fact is considered to be AAPA.
On page 9 Applicant argues that Periyasmy does not address the deficiencies of Lyster.
While Applicant’s argument has been fully and carefully considered, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Examiner maintains that Lyster fully discloses the argued features; Periyasmy is not relied upon for the argued features.
Based on the evidence presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Castellanos (20060229506) discloses playing a soothing audio file for the patient (page 12 paragraph 0155, Abstract illustrating a cardiac patient) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
Jensen (20110270052) discloses calming music for the patient with a heart condition (page 8-9 paragraph 0119) in a manner similar to those disclosed in the instant pending Specification as originally filed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMBIZ ABDI can be reached on (571)272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.N.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685