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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the Remarks filed 02/23/2026. Claims 21-24, 28-33 and 37-40 are pending and considered herein.
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 21-24, 28-33 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
A system comprising: a user computing device and a remote service, each comprising: one or more processors; and one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the user computing device or remote service to: enable, at the user computing device, a user to check-in using the check-in application; render, at the user computing device, a first screen of a GUI (graphical user interface) which includes an inquiry regarding the user's mental health status; receive, at the user computing device, a user response to the presented inquiry, in which the user response indicates a current status of the user's mental health; responsive to receiving the user response, determine, at the user computing device or the remote service, a severity level of the user response; and implement, at the user computing device, automated procedures at the check-in application based on the determined severity level of the user response, in which the automated procedures includes rendering a second screen that addresses and is unique to the user's severity level; monitor, at the remote service, a time period for the user's check-in actions; and present, at the user computing device, a notification at a designated time interval, wherein the notification reminds the user to check-in within the check-in application, and an administrator computing device connected to the remote service, the administrator computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the administrator computing device to: display, on the administrator computing device's GUI, a number of patients awaiting a follow-up from a medical provider, wherein the number of patients awaiting the follow-up from the medical provider staff is separated into at least daily and weekly follow-ups; and display, on the administrator computing device's GUI, an average check-in response for all users operating the check-in application.
Independent claims 30 and 39 recite substantially similar limitations. The claimed invention is broadly directed to the abstract idea of collecting user information including responses to mental health queries, analyzing the information, and determining procedures and/or notifications related to the severity of the responses based on the analyses.
The limitations to “enable a user to check-in which includes an inquiry regarding the user's mental health status; receive a user response to the presented inquiry, in which the user response indicates a current status of the user's mental health; responsive to receiving the user response, determine a severity level of the user response; implement procedures based on the determined severity level of the user response, in which the procedures are unique to the user's severity level; monitor a time period for the user's check-in actions; and present a notification at a designated time interval, wherein the notification reminds the user to check-in; a number of patients awaiting a follow-up from a medical provider, wherein the number of patients awaiting the follow-up from the medical provider staff is separated into at least daily and weekly follow-ups; and an average check-in response for all users operating the check-in application,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic recitation of a system, a user computing device, a remote service, one or more processors, one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions, automated procedures, a display and rendering a first and second screen of a GUI, “an administrator computing device connected to the remote service, the administrator computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the administrator computing device to: display, on the administrator computing device's GUI” and a check-in application, analyzing user mental health data and determining relevant assessments and severity concerns based on the analyses, in the context of this claim, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. These recited limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations allowing access to patient mental health data that is analyzed and a result or notification is generated based on the analysis. This is a method of managing interactions between people. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations are categorized as methods of organizing human activity, specifically associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including a physician and her patient. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer devices, display and applications does not remove the claims from the method of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In addition, the claims recite under its broadest reasonable interpretation, an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, a user computing device, a remote service, one or more processors, one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions, automated procedures, a display and rendering a first and second screen of a GUI, and a check-in application, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computing device language, a system for determining a patient’s mental health condition/severity in the context of this claim encompasses one skilled in the pertinent art to manually assess and determine the details of a patient’s situation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of being implemented by a system, a user computing device, a remote service, one or more processors, one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions, automated procedures, rendering a first and second screen of a GUI, an administrating computing device and a check-in application for the sending and receiving and display of information related to assessment of a patient’s mental health. The devices in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying or sending selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations appear to monopolize the abstract idea of patient mental health analysis and general techniques between a clinician and her patient. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of being implemented by a system, a user computing device, a remote service, one or more processors, one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions, automated procedures, rendering a first and second screen of a GUI, an administrating computing device and a check-in application amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 22-23, 31-32 and 40 detail a notification and further limits the abstract idea. Claims 24 and 33 describe a calendar integrated with the check-in application, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the calendar implemented with the check-in application does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 28 and 37-38 further detail an administrator computing device, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the administrator computing device does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 21-28, 30-37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0046496 A1 to Johnstone et al., hereinafter “Johnstone,” in view of U.S. 2018/0101659 A1 to Ninan et al., hereinafter “Ninan,” in view of U.S. 2021/0407657 A1 to Spektor et al., hereinafter “Spektor” and further in view of U.S. 2024/0105299 A1 to Keene et al., hereinafter “Keene.”
Regarding claim 21, Johnstone discloses A system comprising: a user computing device and a remote service, each comprising: one or more processors; and one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the user computing device or remote service (See Johnstone at least at Abstract; Paras. [0023]-[0025] (“Blocks of the method S100 are executed remotely, such as by a remote server or internal server within a network, upon receipt of a number value from a device issued to a user.”), [0034]-[0036], [0077], [0103] (processor and memory); Figs. 1-6) to: enable, at the user computing device, a user to check-in using the check-in application (See id. at least at Paras. [0015]-[0020] (monitor the user), [0034]-[0036], [0042]-[0043], [0050]-[0055] (native mental health application and emotion tracking and support platform), [0075], [0086]-[0088] (check-in actions), [0093]-[0098]; Figs. 1, 3, 6); render, at the user computing device, a first screen of the GUI which includes an inquiry regarding the user's mental health status application (See id. at least at Abstract (“rendering a graphical object within a graphical user interface […] within the graphical user interface, updating the graphical object to visually correspond to the emotion value assigned to the graphical object; recording submission of a final emotion value through the graphical user interface; and in response to the final emotion value equaling a trigger value, distributing a prompt to monitor the user to an external entity.”); Paras. [0014]-[0018], [0020]-[0031], [0035], [0084]-[0089]; Claim 3; Figs. 1-4, 6-9); receive, at the user computing device, a user response to the presented inquiry, in which the user response indicates a current status of the user's mental health application (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0014]-[0018] (“At various instances over time, the user can access the graphical user interface to submit an emotion value representing the user's current emotional state, such as in response to a prompt automatically issued by the computing device or in order to access additional content or functions on the computing device.”), [0023]-[0035] (“Block S120 of the method S100 recites, in response to a swipe input over the graphical user interface by a user, indexing an emotion value represented on the graphical object.”), [0084]-[0089]; Claims 3; Figs. 1-4, 7-9); monitor, at the remote service, a time period for the user's check-in actions (See id. at least at Paras. [0015]-[0020] (monitor the user), [0034]-[0036] (“in Block S140, the computing device can record a final emotion value selected by the user, store the final emotion value with a time that the emotion value was entered (e.g., in the form of a timestamp) locally on the computing device, and/or upload the emotion value and related metadata (e.g., timestamp, user ID, computing device location) to a remote server or remote database for storage and subsequent handling.”), [0042]-[0043], [0053]-[0055], [0075], [0086]-[0088] (check-in actions), [0093]-[0098]; Fig. 6); and present, at the user computing device, a notification at a designated time interval, wherein the notification reminds the user to check-in within the check-in application. (See id. at least at Paras. [0034]-[0036], [0086]-[0088] (“the native mental health application can issue regular prompts—such as general, mental health-, relationship, or finance-related prompts, as described above—to the user to check-in with an emotion value submission, such as every morning, every afternoon, and every evening. Alternatively, the native mental health application can issue such prompts at dynamic intervals. For example, the native mental health application can issue a higher frequency of check-in prompts to the user for lower emotion values last submitted by the user.”).
Johnstone may not specifically describe but Ninan teaches responsive to receiving the user response, determine, at the user computing device or the remote service, a severity level of the user response (See Ninan at least at Abstract; Paras. [0008]-[0013] (“[T]ransmitting the second portion of the trends may be based on the plurality of responses to the questions exceeding at least one of a specified criterion for a predefined action and a predefined severity level to a single response […] receiving the plurality of responses to the questions from the remote computing device indicating a mental health status of the patient and determining trends indicative of the mental health well-being of the patient based on the plurality of responses to the questions; transmitting at least a first portion of the trends to the remote computing device; and transmitting at least a second portion of the trends to the healthcare provider's computing device based on the plurality of responses to the questions exceeding at least one of a specified criterion for a predefined action and a predefined severity level to a single response.”), [0039]-[0053] (“FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 100 displaying a plurality of questions in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. The GUI 100 may be displayed on any remote computing device as disclosed earlier in this specification. A bar graph key 102 is displayed at the top of the GUI 100. Severity levels from 0-10 are displayed, with 0 being none to 10 being extreme, with intermediate levels including mild, moderate, and severe. An emotion category question 104 and a thought category question 106 are also displayed in the GUI 100.”), [0082]-[0095]; Figs. 1-5, 7, 8, 10); implement, at the user computing device, automated procedures at the check-in application based on the determined severity level of the user response, in which the automated procedures includes rendering a second screen that addresses and is unique to the user's severity level (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003]-[0005], [0037]-[0042], [0049]-[0058] (“FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 100 displaying a plurality of questions in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. The GUI 100 may be displayed on any remote computing device as disclosed earlier in this specification. A bar graph key 102 is displayed at the top of the GUI 100. Severity levels from 0-10 are displayed, with 0 being none to 10 being extreme, with intermediate levels including mild, moderate, and severe. An emotion category question 104 and a thought category question 106 are also displayed in the GUI 100 […] [I]f the user has acute and severe symptoms for a predefined duration and severity, the user's health care provider may automatically be notified. Advantageously, the disclosed method allows a user (and/or health care provider) to detect developing or worsening of a mental health condition, such as anxiety or depression. To this end, a user may monitor improvements, focus on problem areas, and/or observe the levels of personal experiences over time. Further, the disclosed system may include a secure web portal for healthcare providers, allowing them to monitor and track a user's well-being outside the office.”), [0067]-[0070] (“FIG. 3 illustrates another GUI 300 displaying a plurality of questions in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. An emotion category question 302, a thought category question 304, and a behavior category question 306 are displayed in the GUI 300 […] In response to the questions, areas of concern and areas where the user is performing well may be displayed for the user. FIG. 4 illustrates a GUI 400 displaying an example daily and weekly report summary of a patient's symptoms in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure […] FIG. 5 illustrates a GUI 500 displaying a patient's symptoms as a bar chart for daily scores in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 6A illustrates a GUI 600 displaying a patient's symptoms as a histogram with weekly intervals in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. FIG. 6B illustrates a remote computer device GUI 650 displaying a patient's symptoms as a monthly x-y plot over time in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure.”) (These are all examples of multiple screens showing severity levels.); Claims 9, 10, 20; Figs. 1-5, 7, 8, 10 (The steps of Fig. 10 have multiple screens and severity levels).
The references may not specifically describe but Spektor teaches an administrator computing device connected to the remote service, the administrator computing device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more hardware based memory devices having computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the administrator computing device to: display, on the administrator computing device's GUI, a number of patients awaiting a follow-up from a medical provider (See Spektor. at least at Paras. [0019]-[0025] (“In various examples, the main page may include an interface via which one or more clinical assessments may be displayed, reviewed, and/or submitted. The one or more clinical assessments displayed on the main page may include those that are created (e.g., clinical visit pending), signed and awaiting submission, submitted, and/or awaiting correction. In some examples, the main page may provide the office staff with a quick reference of clinical assessment tasks to be completed, such as submitting and/or correcting a clinical assessment […] the service provider may determine one or more care coordination tasks associated with one or more members. The care coordination task may include any task related to the health care of the one or more members, such as a medication renewal, a procedure that is due (e.g., gap in care), a clinical visit due to be scheduled, and the like. For example, the office staff may receive, via the care coordination task page, an indication that a member is due for a clinical visit. Based at least in part on the indication, the office staff may schedule the clinical visit and submit a request for a clinical assessment, such as that described above.”), [0100]-[0105], [0143]-[0147] (daily/weekly), [0150]-[0157]; Figs. 1-10; Claim 7); wherein the number of patients awaiting the follow-up from the medical provider staff is separated into at least daily and weekly follow-ups (See id.).
The references may not specifically describe but Keene teaches to display, on the administrator computing device's GUI, an average check-in response for all users operating the check-in application (See Keene at least at Paras. [0066]-[0067] (average responses), [0090] (average answer), [0124]; Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure Johnstone to incorporate the teachings of Ninan, Spektor and Keene and provide monitoring severity level of a user response and subsequent responses. Ninan is directed to methods for identifying, monitoring and treating a mental health disorder. Spektor relates to an interface for consolidating medical care tasks and managing and scheduling appointments for patients. Keene is directed to reasoning systems based on patient monitoring and feedback responses. Incorporating the patient mental health monitoring and treatment techniques as in Ninan with the appointment scheduling of Spektor, the patient feedback responses as in Keene and the systems and methods for tracking and responding to mental health changes in a patient as in Johnstone would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed computing device configured with user check-in for mental health.
Regarding claim 22, Johnstone as modified by Ninan, Spektor and Keene discloses all the limitations of claim 21 and Johnstone further discloses wherein the notification is a push notification (See Johnstone at least at Paras. [0019], [0050]-[0053], [0063], [0077]-[0078], [0097]; Claim 4).
Regarding claim 23, Johnstone as modified by Ninan, Spektor and Keene discloses all the limitations of claim 21 and Johnstone further discloses wherein the notification is in addition to and separate from daily check-in reminders presented to the user (See id. at least at Paras. [0019], [0050]-[0053], [0063], [0077]-[0078], [0097]; Claim 4).
Regarding claim 24, Johnstone as modified by Ninan, Spektor and Keene discloses all the limitations of claim 23 and Johnstone further discloses a calendar integrated with the check-in application, wherein the calendar presents scheduled check-in information for that specific user (See id. at least at Paras. [0050]-[0056]; See also Ninan at Paras. [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 28, Johnstone as modified by Ninan, Spektor and Keene discloses all the limitations of claim 27 and Keene further teaches wherein the administrator computing device's UT further displays a last check-in response for each individual user See Keene at least at Paras. [0066]-[0067], [0090], [0124]; Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure Johnstone, Ninan and Spektor to incorporate the teachings of and Keene and provide a last check-in response for a user. Keene is directed to reasoning systems based on patient monitoring and feedback responses. Incorporating the patient mental health monitoring and treatment techniques as in Ninan with the appointment scheduling of Spektor, the patient feedback responses as in Keene and the systems and methods for tracking and responding to mental health changes in a patient as in Johnstone would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed computing device configured with user check-in for mental health.
Regarding claims 30 and 39, claims 30 and 39 recite substantially the same limitations as included in independent claim 21. Thus, claims 30 and 39 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 21, above.
Regarding claims 31 and 40, claims 31 and 40 recite substantially the same limitations as included in claim 22. Thus, claims 31 and 40 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 22, above.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 23. Thus, claim 32 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 23, above.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 24. Thus, claim 33 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 24, above.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 25. Thus, claim 34 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 25, above.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 26. Thus, claim 35 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 26, above.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 27. Thus, claim 36 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 27, above.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 28. Thus, claim 37 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 28, above.
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone, in view of Ninan, in view of Spektor, in view of Keene and further in view of U.S. 2015/0370970 A1 to Zebarjadi et al., hereinafter “Zebarjadi.”
Regarding claim 29, Johnstone as modified by Ninan, Spektor and Keene discloses all the limitations of claim 26. The references may not specifically describe but Zebarjadi teaches wherein the administrator computing device's US further display, for each patient, whether a medical provider note is to be automatically transmitted to respective check-in applications (See Zebarjadi at least at Abstract (“The patient interface component establishes anonymized bidirectional communication between patient and doctor […] The patient interface component receives and stores medical notes and billing information from doctor interface.” The patient interface receives and automatically displays medical notes for patients to see); Paras. [0031]-[[0031] (“Similarly, an output component 298 may comprise any type of display, projection system, speaker, tactile device, or other component that provides an output perceivable by a user, such as a patient.”), [0034] (“Some components of a doctor interface component operating on doctor computing device 130 may exchange information, either directly or indirectly, with components operating on a patient computing device 120, either within or without a patient interface, and/or with components operating on a coordination component 110.”), [0036], [0044]-[0045] (“Further, a coordination component 510 may provide a medical reference functionality to provide information both to a doctor and to a patient. Coordination component 510 may utilize medical reference component 513 to provide different types or categories of information that may be pertinent to different entities. For example, medical reference component 513 may provide diagnostic or dosing information to a doctor, but may provide treatment guidelines for instructions for following a treatment plan to a patient.”); Claim 9 (“receiving medical records from the doctor describing the medical services and products delivered to the patient by the doctor and storing the medical notes.” Automatically receiving and storing medical notes displayed on patient computing device of claim 8.); Figs. 2, 3, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure Johnstone, Ninan, Spektor and Keene to incorporate the teachings of Zebarjadi and provide a medical provider note in an application. Zebarjadi is directed to coordinated in person delivery of medical services. Incorporating the sending and display of medical notes as in Zebarjadi with the methods for identifying, monitoring and treating mental health disorders as in Ninan, the appointment scheduling of Spektor, the patient feedback responses as in Keene and the patient mental health tracking techniques as in Johnstone would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the claimed computing device configured with user check-in for mental health.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites substantially the same limitations as included in claim 29. Thus, claim 38 is rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 29, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed May 24, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are not persuasive. The claims have been addressed with regard to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection discussed above. The previously amended claims have been addressed in the Second Non-Final Office Action and again in this Final Office Action. The Examiner disagrees with the arguments at Pages 8-10. Johnstone describes a current emotion value that is rendered on the graphical object (See Johnston at Paras. [0023]-[0025] and Figs. 1-6.) The broadly recited claims of determining a severity level (current emotion) and rendering on a screen to the user’s severity level is described by Johnstone as indicated in the rejection above. Furthermore, Ninan is relied on for the rendering of the second screen unique to the severity level and has examples of this in the different GUI and Figs. cited in the rejection above. In addition, Keene and not Spektor is relied on for average check-in responses (average responses and average answers cited in Keene above). The Examiner asserts that the references detailed above disclose the broadly recited claims. As such, it is submitted that the cited prior art, including those identified by Applicant, in the same field of endeavor, i.e., techniques for clinical administration and assessment, teaches and/or suggests all of the limitations of the pending claims under a broad and reasonable interpretation thereof.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The basis for the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is still operative and the claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above, and considered under the relevant sections of the MPEP. The arguments at pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks are not persuasive. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity and mental processes, without more, discussed above. At pages 7-8 the Examiner disagrees that there is not an abstract idea, that there is any practical application thereof from a “structured computer functionality and coordinated data processing across multiple devices and users.” However, these generic computer devices are merely being leveraged as tools to perform the abstract idea and do not, alone or in combination, amount to a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees at Page 8 that there is a technological improvement recited in the claims directed to “improve the operation of a computerized check-in system.” Any improvement to the underlying computer technology is not apparent from the claim language nor made clear from the specification.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights