DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/03/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 13-15 have been newly added.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered.
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 § 112(f)
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 limitations: are:
These claim limitations are generic placeholders such as “a life information receiver”, “an analyzer”, “an analyzer”, “a predicter”, “a vital information receiver”, “a symptom determinator”, “a user information receiver”, “a model generator”.
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.
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.
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(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10 and 13-15 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim limitations are generic placeholders such as “a life information receiver”, “an analyzer”, “an analyzer”, “a predicter”, “a vital information receiver”, “a symptom determinator”, “a user information receiver”, “a model generator” invoke 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.
Besides the words, “receiver”, “analyzer”, “predicter” and “determinator” not being located in the specification, paragraph 51 does not describe what “a model generator” is and paragraph 60 only suggests these functions are implemented using a general purpose computer. There doesn’t appear to be any computer disclosed as means “to receive life information”, “to identify”, “to use a prediction module to predict”, “to acquire”, “to determine a change in a symptom”, “to receive user information” and “to estimate”. 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 2 recites the limitation "the other actionable behavior" in line 8 of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first actionable behavior" is previously cited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, and “a second actionable behavior" is previously cited in line 15 of claim 1. It is unclear as to whether the other actionable behavior is the same as a first actionable behavior or second actionable behavior.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the actionable behavior" in lines 6 and 10 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first actionable behavior" is previously cited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, and “a second actionable behavior" is previously cited in line 15 of claim 1. It is unclear as to whether the other actionable behavior is the same as a first actionable behavior or second actionable behavior.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the actionable behavior" in line 2 of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first actionable behavior" is previously cited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, and “a second actionable behavior" is previously cited in line 15 of claim 1. It is unclear as to whether the other actionable behavior is the same as a first actionable behavior or second actionable behavior.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the actionable behavior" in line 4 of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a first actionable behavior" is previously cited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, and “a second actionable behavior" is previously cited in line 15 of claim 1. It is unclear as to whether the other actionable behavior is the same as a first actionable behavior or second actionable behavior.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10 and 13-15 use a health support apparatus comprising elements “a life information receiver configured to”, “an analyzer configured to”, “a predicter configured to”, “a vital information receiver configured to”, “a symptom determinator configured to”, “a user information receiver configured to”, “a model generator configured to”. Applicant’s specification only makes broad and general statements of what the apparatus is. The specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The specification does not reasonably describe what the health support apparatus is used to perform the functions in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Besides the words, “receiver”, “analyzer”, “predicter” and “determinator” not being located in the specification, paragraph 51 does not describe what “a model generator” is and paragraph 60 only suggests these functions are implemented using a general purpose computer. The applicant is not even disclosing the computer as means “to receive life information”, “to identify”, “to use a prediction module to predict”, “to acquire”, “to determine a change in a symptom”, “to receive user information” and “to estimate”. The applicant only broadly defines the health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user.
Claims 1 and new 13 now recite a predictor configured to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user, but the specification does not mention that a second actionable behavior is predicted “in accordance with characteristics of” another actionable behavior.
New claim 14 recites a predictor configured to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user, but the specification does not mention that a second actionable behavior is predicted “in accordance with characteristics of” another actionable behavior.
Claims 2-7, 10 and 15 are also rejected, through dependency.
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 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claims 13 and 14 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 13-14 cover the systems claims.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus comprising:
a life information reception unit configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life;
an analyzer configured to identify from life information, an activity that had been continuously performed by the user but, after a certain point in time, has not been performed or has been performed less frequently, as a firs actionable behavior, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity;
a predictor configured to use a prediction model to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user; and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional.
Specifically, independent claim 13 recites:
A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus comprising:
a life information receiver configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life;
an analyzer configured to identify, from the life information, an activity that has been performed by the user at a frequency equal to or greater than a predetermined frequency during a certain period of time, as a first actionable behavior, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity;
a predictor configured to use a prediction model to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user; and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional.
Specifically, independent claim 14 recites:
A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus comprising:
a life information receiver configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life;
an analyzer configured to identify, from the life information and guidance information provided by a medical professional, an activity that the user performed after receiving guidance from the medical professional and that the user followed as part of the guidance, as a first actionable behavior, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity;
a predictor configured to use a prediction model to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user; and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance, analyzing information on activity that the user performs in daily life and improvement of a physical condition of a user, predicting whether or not the user’s activity is intervened the activity and displaying the actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional are part of a medical workflow and providing a healthcare service, which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, these limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because identifying actionable behavior that the user and predicting an actionable behavior are able to perform in the activity is determining an intervention, analyzing a first actionable behavior, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity are all observations/evaluations/analysis that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claims 1 and 13-14).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 2-7 and 10, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 2 - wherein the life information includes information on emotion of the user when the activity has been performed, the analyzer increases priority of actionable behavior accompanied by non-negative emotion in the actionable behavior, and the display configures to display the actionable behavior for which the analyzer has increased priority in a manner distinguishable from the other actionable behavior, claim 3 – a vital information receiver configured to acquire vital information of the user, and a symptom determinator configured to determine a change in a symptom of the user from the vital information, wherein the analyzer identifies the actionable behavior performed before a time when the symptom determinator determines that the symptom has improved, as symptom-related actionable behavior and the display configures to display the symptom-related actionable behavior in a manner distinguishable from the actionable behavior, claim 4 – the analyzer statistically estimates the actionable behavior, claim 5 – a user information receiver configured to receive user information on an attribute of the user, and a model generator configured to estimate the actionable behavior of the user, claim 6 – the model generator uses the actionable behavior as correct data and generates a prediction model in which input data is the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform, and the display configures to display the behavior output by the prediction model, claim 7 - the model generator uses the symptom-related actionable behavior as correct data and generates a prediction model in which input data is the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform, and the display configures to display the behavior output by the prediction model and claim 10 – to transmit the actionable behavior.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, a processor, a life information reception unit, an analysis unit, a presentation unit, a vital information reception unit, a symptom determination unit and a user information reception unit to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, processor, life information reception unit, analysis unit, presentation unit, vital information reception unit, symptom determination unit and user information reception unit are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations “a model generation unit” and “a prediction model”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation “receive life information”, “receive user information” and “receiving guidance…” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claims 1 and 13-14, regarding the additional limitations of the system, processor, life information reception unit, analysis unit, presentation unit, vital information reception unit, symptom determination unit and user information reception unit, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claims 1 and 13-14 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 10 and 13-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazar (US 2021/0287513 A1) in view of Hume (US 2024/0303601 A1).
Claim 1:
Mazar discloses A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus (See Fig. 1-2 exemplary apparatus, P0039-P0040, P0205 patient communicating and caregiver observing symptoms. Also, see P0106 where the patient’s health has improved enough to be discharged home.) comprising:
a life information reception unit configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life (See measured, recorded and tracked vital sign in Abstract, and P0034, P0110 chest sensor including accelerometer for detecting activities such as daily exercise.);
an analyzer configured to identify from life information (See P0012, P0031 patient vital signs such as blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory rate and heart rate.), an activity that had been continuously performed by the user but, after a certain point in time, has not been performed or has been performed less frequently, as a first actionable behavior (See P0015 accelerometers of the patient-worn sensor for tracking daily exercises such as walking (P0034, P0111) as actionable behavior, and P0176, P0193 exemplary patient profiled for 15 minute walks every day at approximately 4 pm tracked after a certain point in time and being done less frequently by the patient.), the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity (See P0092-P0093 where the chest sensor to continually sync and un-sync with various monitors at various different times serves as continuously performing when the user is intervened to perform the activity or an activity that the user would be able to stop.);
a predictor configured to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user (See P0230-P0232, P0244-P0245 where exercises during physical therapy sessions serves as a first actionable behavior and the second actionable behavior is predicting medical occurrences such as discharge time.); and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional (See P0191 images to follow instructions for discharge and rehabilitation exercises displayed via computing device 710 shown in Fig. 7, P0222-P0224, P0291.).
See Fig. 5A-5E, P0173, P0183-P0186 displaying a numeric heart rate value, a numeric blood oxygenation level, a numerical respiratory rate value, a numeric body temperature value, a blood pressure value and staff notes.).
Although Mazar discloses a health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity mentioned above, Mazar does not explicitly teach predicting actionable behavior for the user using a prediction model. Hume teaches to use a prediction model (Taught as probabilistic models in P0037-P0039, where the Enterprise Clinical Decision Support Systems (EDSS) leverage knowledge of patient population performance under various therapy protocols to optimize the therapy rule sets and/or probabilistic models of local decision support systems. Also, see models in P0044, P0051-P0052.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of graphical interface for medical data before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar to utilize a prediction model as taught by Hume in order to enable a user to analyze medical data in a visual display, accept user inputs, instructions and selected data in a desired manner mentioned in Hume’s P0006, P0011.
Claim 13:
Mazar discloses A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus (See Fig. 1-2 exemplary apparatus, P0039-P0040, P0205 patient communicating and caregiver observing symptoms. Also, see P0106 where the patient’s health has improved enough to be discharged home.) comprising:
a life information receiver configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life (See measured, recorded and tracked vital sign in Abstract, and P0034, P0110 chest sensor including accelerometer for detecting activities such as daily exercise.);
an analyzer configured to identify, from the life information (See P0012, P0031 patient vital signs such as blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory rate and heart rate.), an activity that has been performed by the user at a frequency equal to or greater than a predetermined frequency during a certain period of time, as a first actionable behavior (See [P0015] The patient information collected by the patient-worn mobile sensor can be collected using one or more accelerometers of the patient-worn sensor and wherein the pre-defined condition comprises a change in accelerometer information exceeding a predetermined threshold, and P0245 predicting the patient’s discharge time at a predetermined amount of time after the patient's third physical therapy session.), the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity (See P0092-P0093 where the chest sensor to continually sync and un-sync with various monitors at various different times serves as continuously performing when the user is intervened to perform the activity or an activity that the user would be able to stop.);
a predictor configured to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user (See P0230-P0232, P0244-P0245 predicting a medical occurrences and discharge time based on notes, vitals and sensor readings.); and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional (See Fig. 5A-5E, P0173, P0183-P0186 displaying a numeric heart rate value, a numeric blood oxygenation level, a numerical respiratory rate value, a numeric body temperature value, a blood pressure value and staff notes.).
Although Mazar discloses a health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity mentioned above, Mazar does not explicitly teach predicting actionable behavior for the user using a prediction model. Hume teaches to use a prediction model (Taught as probabilistic models in P0037-P0039, where the Enterprise Clinical Decision Support Systems (EDSS) leverage knowledge of patient population performance under various therapy protocols to optimize the therapy rule sets and/or probabilistic models of local decision support systems. Also, see models in P0044, P0051-P0052.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of graphical interface for medical data before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar to utilize a prediction model as taught by Hume in order to enable a user to analyze medical data in a visual display, accept user inputs, instructions and selected data in a desired manner mentioned in Hume’s P0006, P0011.
Claim 14:
Mazar discloses A health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the health support apparatus (See Fig. 1-2 exemplary apparatus, P0039-P0040, P0205 patient communicating and caregiver observing symptoms. Also, see P0106 where the patient’s health has improved enough to be discharged home.) comprising:
a life information receiver configured to receive life information including information on activity that the user performed in daily life (See measured, recorded and tracked vital sign in Abstract, and P0034, P0110 chest sensor including accelerometer for detecting activities such as daily exercise.);
an analyzer configured to identify, from the life information and guidance information provided by a medical professional (See [P0044] the caregiver 110 may be a physical therapist and can use the bedside monitor 108 to log a therapy activity for the patient 104 and make notes about physical therapy progress for the patient 104. Also, see P0057, P0094 and P0191 physical therapist post instructions on how to perform rehabilitative exercises.), an activity that the user performed after receiving guidance from the medical professional and that the user followed as part of the guidance, as a first actionable behavior (See [P0015] The patient information collected by the patient-worn mobile sensor can be collected using one or more accelerometers of the patient-worn sensor and wherein the pre-defined condition comprises a change in accelerometer information exceeding a predetermined threshold, and P0245 predicting the patient’s discharge time at a predetermined amount of time after the patient's third physical therapy session.), the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity (See P0092-P0093 where the chest sensor to continually sync and un-sync with various monitors at various different times serves as continuously performing when the user is intervened to perform the activity or an activity that the user would be able to stop.);
a predictor configured to predict, based on at least the life information and user information and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user (See P0230-P0232, P0244-P0245 predicting a medical occurrences and discharge time based on notes, vitals and sensor readings.); and
a display configured to display the second actionable behavior to the user or a medical professional (See Fig. 5A-5E, P0173, P0183-P0186 displaying a numeric heart rate value, a numeric blood oxygenation level, a numerical respiratory rate value, a numeric body temperature value, a blood pressure value and staff notes.).
Although Mazar discloses a health support apparatus for supporting symptomatic alleviation or maintenance and improvement of a physical condition of a user, the first actionable behavior being an activity that the user would be able to continuously perform when the user is intervened to perform the activity, or an activity that the user would be able to stop when the user is intervened to stop the activity mentioned above, Mazar does not explicitly teach predicting actionable behavior for the user using a prediction model. Hume teaches to use a prediction model (Taught as probabilistic models in P0037-P0039, where the Enterprise Clinical Decision Support Systems (EDSS) leverage knowledge of patient population performance under various therapy protocols to optimize the therapy rule sets and/or probabilistic models of local decision support systems. Also, see models in P0044, P0051-P0052.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of graphical interface for medical data before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar to utilize a prediction model as taught by Hume in order to enable a user to analyze medical data in a visual display, accept user inputs, instructions and selected data in a desired manner mentioned in Hume’s P0006, P0011.
Regarding claim 3 Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 1 mentioned above, and Mazar discloses further comprising: a vital information receiver configured to acquire vital information of the user (See measured, recorded and tracked vital sign in Abstract, and P0034, P011 chest sensor including accelerometer for detecting activities such as daily exercise.); and
a symptom determinator configured to determine a change in a symptom of the user from the vital information (See Fig. 1-2 exemplary apparatus, P0039-P0040, P0205 patient communicating and caregiver observing symptoms. Also, see P0106 where the patient’s health has improved enough to be discharged home.), wherein the analyzer identifies the actionable behavior performed before a time when the symptom determinator determines that the symptom has improved, as symptom-related actionable behavior (With symptoms in the form of seeing progress of the patient in physical therapy (P0011, P0044) again exercise as actional behavior and symptom-related, also see P0141.), and
the display configures to display the symptom-related actionable behavior in a manner distinguishable from the actionable behavior (See P0191 images to follow instructions for discharge and rehabilitation exercises displayed via computing device 710 shown in Fig. 7, P0222-P0224, P0291.).
Regarding claim 4, Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 1, and Hume teaches wherein the analyzer statistically estimates the actionable behavior (See statistical tools in P0038-P0039.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of graphical interface for medical data before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar to include analyzing statistical estimating of the actionable behavior as taught by Hume in order to enable a user to analyze medical data in a visual display, accept user inputs, instructions and selected data in a desired manner mentioned in Hume’s P0006, P0011.
Regarding claim 5, Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 1 mentioned above, and Mazar discloses further comprising: a user information receiver configured to receive user information on an attribute of the user (With attributes as notes taken during a medical exam, see Fig. 5D, P0198 displaying patient and staff notes.); and a model generator configured to estimate the actionable behavior of the user (See P0034 where the accelerometer with chest sensor detects patient pulse rate when determining if the patient is getting sufficient daily exercise.).
Regarding claim 10, Mazar discloses the health support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the actionable behavior (See transmitting information and alarms in P0110, P0115, P0169, P0172.).
Regarding claim 15, Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 1, and Mazar discloses wherein the life information receiver configured to receive the life information from a wearable terminal, and the life information includes at least one of blood pressure, pulse, or perspiration (See wearable chest sensors in P0030, P0107-P0108, P0110. Also, see P0012, P0031 patient vital signs such as blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory rate and heart rate.).
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazar (US 2021/0287513 A1) in view of Hume (US 2024/0303601 A1) further in view of Rajput (WO 2022/086454 A1).
Regarding claim 2, although Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 1 mentioned above, Mazar and Hume do not explicitly teach analyzing increased priority of actionable behavior accompanied by non-negative emotion in the actionable behavior, and displaying the actionable behavior for which the analyzer has increased priority in a manner distinguishable from the other actionable behavior. Rajput teaches:
wherein the life information includes information on emotion of the user when the activity has been performed, the analyzer increases priority of actionable behavior accompanied by non-negative emotion in the actionable behavior, and the display configures to display the actionable behavior for which the analyzer has increased priority in a manner distinguishable from the other actionable behavior (See reminiscence therapy module regarding coming to terms using past happy memories (P0059, P0062-P0063) and compliance to wellness exercises (P0069) as exemplary actionable behavior accompanied by non-negative emotion. Also, see P0095 where recommending various behavioral therapies including the prioritization of therapies serves as analysis for increasing priority in a manner distinguishable from the other actionable behavior.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cognitive intervention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar and Hume to include analyzing increased priority of actionable behavior accompanied by non-negative emotion in the actionable behavior, and displaying the actionable behavior for which the analyzer has increased priority in a manner distinguishable from the other actionable behavior as taught by Rajput for valuable insight and decision making as mentioned in Rajput’s P0005.
Regarding claim 6, although Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 5 mentioned above, Mazar and Hume do not explicitly teach generating and displaying a prediction model with input data with the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform. Rajput teaches wherein the model generator uses the actionable behavior as correct data and generates a prediction model in which input data is the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform, and the display configures to display the behavior output by the prediction model (See [0072] A cognitive analytics engine 40 is configured to process the patient profile, digital cognitive biomarkers, and the behavioural and physiological biomarkers using an ensemble of population-based and personalised prediction models trained using a plurality of Artificial Intelligence (Al) and Machine Learning (ML) methods.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cognitive intervention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar and Hume to include generating and displaying a prediction model with input data with the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform as taught by Rajput for valuable insight and decision making as mentioned in Rajput’s P0005.
Regarding claim 7 although Mazar and Hume teach the health support apparatus according to claim 5 mentioned above, Mazar and Hume do not explicitly teach generating and displaying a prediction model with input data with the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform, wherein the model generator uses the symptom-related actionable behavior as correct data and generates a prediction model in which input data is the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform, and the display configures to display the behavior output by the prediction model (See P0072 where the generated report serve as the presentation unit and personalized prediction models training.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cognitive intervention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazar and Hume to include generating and displaying a prediction model with input data with the user information and the life information and output is behavior that the user is able to perform as taught by Rajput for valuable insight and decision making as mentioned in Rajput’s P0005.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the 112(f) issue have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The claim interpretation issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 -11 still stands. Also, see 112(a) and 112 (b) rejections for further explanation as to why the claims are indefinite.
Applicant alleges that claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind and does not include any equations or formulas. See pgs. 7-8 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Neither broadly claimed claim 1, nor the specification describe how to: 1) identify user's activities that had been continuously performed by the user but, after a certain point in time, has not been performed or has been performed less frequently and 2) predict, based on at least life information and user information, and in accordance with characteristics of the first actionable behavior, a second actionable behavior for the user. For example, there’s no mentioning of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI) processing or robotics in Applicant’s specification (Note 7, paragraphs 49, 51, 54-55) in a way that would distinguish the identifying and predicting actionable behavior of another human being was not performed by humans interactively and using incorporated knowledge.
Applicant alleges that claim 1 is integrated judicial exception into practical applications. See pgs. 8-9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Analyzing activity after a certain point, activity performed less frequently, determining whether activity is able to continuously be perform or be able to stop and predicting a model don’t necessarily need a computer to perform. Nonetheless, these are operations any generic computer would be expected to do, is merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (saying “apply it”) and is merely using the computer in the manner in which it was designed to be used, i.e., performing generic computer functions. The recited improvements are nonetheless directed towards improving the abstract idea and not the computer itself – that is, the recited invention may improve analyzing activity frequency, actionable behavior and symptoms associated with an encounter between an individual and a provider (i.e. the abstract idea), but there is no evidence to show that it improves the structural or functional properties of the computer itself.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103 and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Berry (US 2026/0011417 A1) & Amarasingham (US 10,496,788 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 08/06/2026
/Anita Y Coupe/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights