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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that Neagle failed to teach generating a health and wellness plan for a person by integrating a plurality of domain-specific plans prescribed by different providers into a single consolidated plan using a project-management framework, the health and wellness plan including … each managed as a separate project with task dependencies and task interdependencies. Georgiev is introduced to teach these limitations.
Applicant argued that Neagle failed to disclose integrating and orchestrating services and analytics to enable collaborative, integrated planning for health, wellness, fitness, and athletic performance, change monitoring and measurement, behavior incenting, coaching supporting, and reporting both internally and to external authorized recipients. Initially it is noted that no rejection was made in the non-final office action against claim 7 using the Neagle reference, as claim 7 was not treated due to its multiple dependency issues. Georgiev teaches athletic performance. See Georgiev [0026], [0065]. Georgiev teaches external authorized recipients. Georgiev [0026]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 1 – the claims recite at least one step or act, and therefore the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – A claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is that the claimed steps fall within in the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The claims can be practically performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, and therefore falls within the mental processes grouping. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III(B) and (C).
The limitations of generating a health and wellness plan…by integrating a plurality of domain-specific plans…into a single consolidated plan using a project-management framework, selecting a plurality of individuals to form a support network for the person…, assigning roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the plurality of individuals in the support network…, and reputing and updating the health and wellness plan for the person and the roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the plurality of individuals, based on tracking health of the person, are under their broadest reasonable interpretations mental steps that can be performed with a physical aid such as pen and paper. The recitation of a computer or an AI knowledge engine to perform the steps in claims 1-20 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2A, Prong Two – This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Claims 4, 5, and 19 perform the claim limitations “using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based knowledge engine”, merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based knowledge engine” limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h), Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). In this case, the AI based knowledge engine does not confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system. The AI-based knowledge engine is merely mentioned in claims 4, 5, and 19 as performing the steps of receiving data for the person, analyzing a current state, identifying data omissions and potential adverse events, and generating insights for modifying and/or fulfilling the health and wellness plan based on the current state and identified data omissions and potential adverse events; analyzing anonymized data across a population including the person to provide population level knowledge, and providing feedback to the person and the plurality of individuals based on either the generated insights or the population level knowledge. The AI based knowledge engine in this case as claimed does not confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting and analyzing data over a network, and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instrucitons to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed to mental processes, which do not fall within the statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagle (US 2018/0358117) in view of Georgiev et al. (US 2012/0059664).
In regard to claim 1, Neagle disclosed a method for health and wellness management, comprising:
generating a health and wellness plan for a person (Neagle [0025], [0056]) … including (i) a diet plan (Neagle [0056]), (ii) a rest plan (Neagle [0025]), (iii) an exercise plan (Neagle [0056]), (iv) an attitude/lifestyle/mental health plan (Neagle [0056], behavioral modification), (v) a medical care plan (Neagle [0056]), and (vi) specialist services, … based on a repository of health and wellness data that is specific to the person (Neagle [0064]);
selecting a plurality of individuals to form a support network for the person based on the health and wellness plan; Neagle [0056]
assigning roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the plurality of individuals in the support network, based on the health and wellness plan (Neagle [0064]); and
reporting and updating (i) the health and wellness plan for the person (Neagle [0056], [0067]), and (ii) the roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the plurality of individuals, based on tracking health of the person. Neagle [0061]-[0062]
Neagle failed to disclose generating a health and wellness plan for a person by integrating a plurality of domain-specific plans prescribed by different providers into a single consolidated plan using a project-management framework, the health and wellness plan including … each managed as a separate project with task dependencies and task interdependencies.
However, Georgiev disclosed generating a health and wellness plan for a person (Georgiev [0025]-[0026]) by integrating a plurality of domain-specific plans prescribed by different providers (Georgiev [0026]) into a single consolidated plan using a project-management framework (Georgiev [0039], personalized health dashboard), the health and wellness plan including … each managed as a separate project with task dependencies and task interdependencies. (Georgiev [0040], [0042], [0045]-[0049], healthy data routine with multiple tabs is separate projects with task dependencies and task interdependencies)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to aggregate a multiplicity of health plans into a single heath and wellness plan in Neagle for the purposes of providing a single place to access all healthcare plan data for a user.
In regard to claim 2, Neagle disclosed:
generating the repository of health and wellness data for the person by integrating the person's health-system records with other digital content related to the person's health, wellness, conditioning, fitness, athletic performance, or professional physical, mental or other performance gathered from external sources, including care providers, athletic trainers, coaches, labs, specialists, and other individuals and organizations, along with genomic data, social determinants of health (SDOH), device data, financial, cost and/or claims data, and other person-generated data provided through uploads, responses to surveys generated, and outcomes feedback obtained during execution of the health and wellness plan. Neagle [0021]-[0022]
In regard to claim 3, Neagle disclosed:
providing an always-on, private collaboration channel that enables sharing and exchange of content, for integrating and managing the health and wellness plan among the person and the plurality of individuals in the support network. Neagle [0071]-[0074]
In regard to claim 6, Neagle disclosed:
measuring progress towards meeting goals of the health and wellness plan; and Neagle [0023]
providing feedback to motivate the person and modify daily behavior and activities of the person, to meet the goals, based on the measured progress. Neagle [0023]
In regard to claim 7, Georgiev disclosed:
integrating and orchestrating services and analytics to enable collaborative, integrated planning for health, wellness, fitness, and athletic-performance, change monitoring and measurement, behavior incenting, coaching, supporting, and reporting both internally and to external authorized recipients. Georgiev teaches athletic performance. See Georgiev [0026], [0065]. Georgiev teaches external authorized recipients. Georgiev [0026]
In regard to claim 8, Neagle disclosed wherein the health and wellness plan includes one or more goals and associated timelines. Neagle [0025], [0033], [0056]
In regard to claim 9, Neagle and Georgiev disclosed wherein assigning the roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights comprises:
scheduling tasks, events and activities with calendar-based planning and management tools; Neagle [0056]
managing task dependencies and task interdependencies; (Georgiev [0040], [0042], [0045]-[0049])
assigning of task, event and activity owners; and Neagle [0056]
tracking of progress and completion of tasks, events and activities to support notification of appropriate users. Neagle [0056]
In regard to claim 10, Neagle disclosed:
applying a rules-based decision algorithm, based on the health and wellness plans, the person's health system records and real-time health and wellness information, to trigger one or more updates selected from the group consisting of:
i. generating system alerts and providing notifications regarding missing information;
ii. identifying changes to the health and wellness plans, the person's health system records, and the real-time health and wellness information; Neagle [0056]
iii. notifying appropriate users when tasks, events and activities are completed, on pace with or falling behind expected progress, or that need to be completed; Neagle [0056]
iv. alerting the person and other authorized users of changes in team composition and/or role/access capabilities; and
v. suggesting new activities or changes to activities based on the rules-based decision algorithm and updated data. Neagle [0056]
In regard to claim 11, Neagle disclosed:
performing receipt, recognition, transformation, metadata tagging, and persistence of any structured or unstructured digital content. Neagle [0024]
In regard to claim 12, Neagle disclosed:
providing an interface (Neagle [0027]) to assign the roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights to data and services to individuals of the plurality of individuals; and (Neagle [0018])
receiving, via the interface, the roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights to data and services. Neagle [0018]
In regard to claim 13, Neagle disclosed:
providing a summary snapshot of current state and progress for each individual of the plurality of individuals and the person, in accordance with the role-based access rights to data and services assigned to each individual. Neagle [0056]
In regard to claim 14, Neagle disclosed wherein the summary snapshot is categorized based on whether an individual belongs to the person's family and friends, a healthcare team, or a specialist team. Neagle [0056]
In regard to claim 15, Neagle disclosed:
applying information security measures for protecting confidentiality, integrity and availability of data and services available to the person and the plurality of individuals. Neagle [0018]
In regard to claim 16, Neagle disclosed:
for each person of a plurality of persons:
generating a respective health and wellness plan based on a respective repository of health and wellness data; Neagle [0056], [0067]
selecting a respective plurality of individuals to form a respective support network for the respective person; Neagle [0018]
assigning respective roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the respective plurality of individuals in the support network, based on the health and wellness plan; and Neagle [0018]
reporting and updating (i) the respective health and wellness plan for the person, and (ii) the respective roles, responsibilities and role-based access rights for the plurality of individuals, based on tracking health of the respective person. Neagle [0018], [0061]-[0062]
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claim 18, Neagle disclosed:
providing an always-on, private collaboration channel that enables sharing and exchange of content, for integrating and managing the health and wellness plan among the person and the plurality of individuals in the support network. Neagle [0071]-[0074]
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagle in view of Georgiev as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Capps (US 2021/0313066).
In regard to claim 4, Neagle and Georgiev failed to disclose using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based knowledge engine to: (i) continuously receive data for the person, analyze a current state, identify data omissions and potential adverse events, and (ii) generate insights for modifying and/or fulfilling the health and wellness plan based on the current state and identified data omissions and potential adverse events; and providing feedback to the person and the plurality of individuals, based on the generated insights.
However, Capps disclosed using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based knowledge engine to: (i) continuously receive data for the person, analyze a current state, identify data omissions and potential adverse events, and (ii) generate insights for modifying and/or fulfilling the health and wellness plan based on the current state and identified data omissions and potential adverse events; and providing feedback to the person and the plurality of individuals, based on the generated insights. Capps [0031], [0057], [0061]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AI to constantly respond to data in order to review the health plans of an individual user and provide feedback to the individual user.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neagle in view of Georgiev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Virtanen et al. (US 2019/0362819).
In regard to claim 5, Neagle in view of Georgiev failed to disclose:
analyzing, … anonymized data across a population including the person, to obtain population-level knowledge; and
providing feedback to the person and the plurality of individuals, based on the population-level knowledge.
Neagle did teach the use of AI in Neagle [0025], [0031], [0059], [0066]
However, Virtanen disclosed analyzing, … anonymized data across a population including the person, to obtain population-level knowledge; (Virtanen [0060]) and
providing feedback to the person and the plurality of individuals, based on the population-level knowledge. (Virtanen [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use anonymized population data to tailor health care plans for a user in order to get as large a quantity of medical data as possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445