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(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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a patient,” on several occasions. After the first recitation of “a patient,” each recitation of “a patient,” or “a patient’s,” will be construed to refer back to the first recitation of “a patient.”
Claim 1 twice recites “a patient's symptoms.” After the first recitation of “a patient's symptoms,” each recitation of “a patient's symptoms,” will be construed to refer back to the first recitation of “a patient's symptoms.”
Claim 2 and 4-7 recites the limitations "a patient.” It is unclear if this refers to the same "a patient,” recited in claim 1. The limitations will be construed as "the patient.”
Claim 2 and 5-7 recites the limitations "a physician.” It is unclear if this refers to the same "a physician,” recited in claim 1. The limitations will be construed as "the physician.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a patient's symptoms.” It is unclear if this refers to the same "a patient's symptoms,” recited in claim 1. The limitation will be construed as "patient's symptoms.”
The claims appear to be replete with antecedent basis issues. Applicant should review the claim to correct any 112(b) issues that were not identified above, in their response.
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 1-9, can best be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One: The following underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity.” For example, a medical professional can follow rules or instructions to determine/identify an intervention recommendation to a user. The limitations below merely describe receiving data, analyzing the data, and providing a recommendation based on the data analysis. The instant claims are similar to the method of organizing human activity of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)(iii) stating an example of managing personal behavior is “a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982).” Furthermore, the claims constitute a “mental process” because analyzing gathered data to prescribe treatment, as claimed, amounts to concepts performed in the human mind because a person could complete the above method using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claim 1 recites: A method for self-reporting patient medical symptoms to a physician using at least one digitally interactive, three-dimensional, full-sale, human body image modifiable anatomical avatar to be depicted in a patient’s image, said method comprising:
(A) transmitting a patient mobile application to a patient digital mobile device for a patient experiencing medical symptoms and seeking medical treatment, said patient mobile application comprising said modifiable anatomical avatar and a plurality of differential diagnostic questions to assess, and digitally self-report, a patient’s symptoms to a physician;
(B) transmitting a physician mobile application to a physician digital mobile device for a physician who is available to examine patients within a designated proximity to a physician, said physician mobile application comprising a network and plurality of digital platforms to allow a physician’s access to a patient's digital healthcare records and demographic information, which facilitates the provision of patient healthcare treatment strategies;
(C) receiving from said patient mobile application said digital healthcare records comprising a patient’s answers to said plurality of differential diagnostic questions paired with at least one of said modifiable anatomical avatars, modified to depict a patient’s symptoms, wherein said digital healthcare records are stored in a database, which is accessible via a network, by a patient and at least one physician;
(D) receiving from said patient mobile application an opt-in request to locate a nearby physician and facilitate an in-person appointment scheduling request;
(E) receiving from said patient mobile application an approval to participate in, and pay for, an in-person medical examination according to said in-person appointment scheduling request
(F) transmitting said in-person appointment scheduling request to said physician mobile application via said network;
(G) receiving an acceptance of said in-person appointment scheduling request from said physician mobile application;
(H) utilizing, in combination, said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records stored in said database and accessible via said network, to complete a patient’s in-person medical examination; and
(I) utilizing said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records and data obtained during an in-person patient medical examination to prescribe a customized patient treatment plan, which is added to said digital healthcare records and stored in said database.
Step 2A - Prong Two: The bolded text below, are not part of the abstract idea(s).
A method for self-reporting patient medical symptoms to a physician using at least one digitally interactive, three-dimensional, full-sale, human body image modifiable anatomical avatar to be depicted in a patient’s image, said method comprising:
(A) transmitting a patient mobile application to a patient digital mobile device for a patient experiencing medical symptoms and seeking medical treatment, said patient mobile application comprising said modifiable anatomical avatar and a plurality of differential diagnostic questions to assess, and digitally self-report, a patient’s symptoms to a physician;
(B) transmitting a physician mobile application to a physician digital mobile device for a physician who is available to examine patients within a designated proximity to a physician, said physician mobile application comprising a network and plurality of digital platforms to allow a physician’s access to a patient's digital healthcare records and demographic information, which facilitates the provision of patient healthcare treatment strategies;
(C) receiving from said patient mobile application said digital healthcare records comprising a patient’s answers to said plurality of differential diagnostic questions paired with at least one of said modifiable anatomical avatars, modified to depict a patient’s symptoms, wherein said digital healthcare records are stored in a database, which is accessible via a network, by a patient and at least one physician;
(D) receiving from said patient mobile application an opt-in request to locate a nearby physician and facilitate an in-person appointment scheduling request;
(E) receiving from said patient mobile application an approval to participate in, and pay for, an in-person medical examination according to said in-person appointment scheduling request
(F) transmitting said in-person appointment scheduling request to said physician mobile application via said network;
(G) receiving an acceptance of said in-person appointment scheduling request from said physician mobile application;
(H) utilizing, in combination, said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records stored in said database and accessible via said network, to complete a patient’s in-person medical examination; and
(I) utilizing said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records and data obtained during an in-person patient medical examination to prescribe a customized patient treatment plan, which is added to said digital healthcare records and stored in said database.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “digitally,” “a patient mobile application,” “a digital mobile device,” “a physician mobile application,” “a network and plurality of digital platforms,” “a database,” are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the additional elements amounts to no more than instructions to apply an exception by merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(f). Furthermore, the combination of additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The steps of receiving and transmitting data, amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A – Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the steps of receiving and transmitting data that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the receiving/transmitting are accomplished with anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites the additional elements of a processor and memory. The processor and memory are analyzed in the same manner as the device in claim 1, and do not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons, whether alone or in combination.
Dependent claims 2-8 include other limitations, but these only serves to further limit the abstract idea, and are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-8 merely describe a type of data and analysis of the data, and therefore serve only to further limit the abstract idea.
The dependent claims contain additional elements, such as triage and emergency platforms, but these elements do not provide a practical application or significantly, whether alone or in combination.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-9 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20110231205 A1 to Letts (“Letts”)
Regarding claim 9, Letts discloses:
A system for self-reporting patient medical symptoms to a physician using at least one digitally interactive, three-dimensional, full-sale, human body image modifiable anatomical avatar to be depicted in a patient’s image, said system comprising: (Letts, 0033: a patient reports symptoms in their own words, which is used to schedule appointments, see 0057 and includes a digital body map see 0014)
(A) a patient mobile application; (Letts, 0033: client device 105, which includes a mobile phone, see 0028)
(B) physician mobile application; (Letts, 0033: client device 106/107)
(C) a network; (Letts, 0033: the client device communicates via a networks and includes a system, e.g., a platform, to create records)
(D) a database comprising digital healthcare records; (Letts, 0034: the record is stored in database)
(E) a storage medium; (Letts, 0030: hard drive)
(F) a memory module; (Letts, 0030: memory)
(G) a program module; (Letts, 0030: a program module)
(H) a processor; and (Letts, Abstract: processor)
(I) a plurality of digital platforms providing integrated functionality within said system. (Letts, Fig. 8-18: various user interfaces)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 5-6, as can best be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110231205 A1 to Letts (“Letts”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170364655 A1 to Farooqi (“Farooqi”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160379173 A1 to Karnati (“Karnati”)
Regarding claim 1, Letts discloses:
A method for self-reporting patient medical symptoms to a physician using at least one digitally interactive, three-dimensional, full-sale, human body image modifiable anatomical avatar to be depicted in a patient’s image1, said method comprising: (Letts, 0033: a patient reports symptoms in their own words, which is used to schedule appointments, see 0057 and includes a digital body map see 0014)
(A) a patient mobile application (Letts, 0033: client device 105, which includes a mobile phone, see 0028) for a patient experiencing medical symptoms and seeking medical treatment, (Letts, 0033: the patient has a medical issue, such as skin lesions for the purpose of diagnosis, see 0034) said patient mobile application comprising said modifiable anatomical avatar (0033: the patient provides information regarding a lesion which allows a user to create a body map/avatar of a digital representation of a human body including the location of lesion on the avatar) and assess, and digitally self-report, a patient’s symptoms to a physician; (0033: the patient provides information regarding a lesion which allows a user to create a body map/avatar of a digital representation of a human body including the location of lesion on the avatar)
(B) a physician digital mobile device for a physician (Letts, 0033: client device 106/107) who is available to examine patients within a designated proximity to a physician, (Letts, 0050: a nearby physician, such as within distance d, see 0063) said physician mobile application comprising a network and plurality of digital platforms (Letts, 0033: the client device communicates via a networks and includes a system, e.g., a platform, to create records) to allow a physician’s access to a patient's digital healthcare records and demographic information, (Letts, 0057: a record is available in real time, and the record includes health records, such as image data/lesion data, and demographics, such as gender, see 0033) which facilitates the provision of comprehensive and efficacious patient healthcare treatment strategies;2 (Letts, 0035: records at specific time intervals facilitate an accurate and efficient evaluation)
(C) receiving from said patient mobile application said digital healthcare records comprising a patient’s answers to said plurality of differential diagnostic questions paired with at least one of said modifiable anatomical avatars, modified to depict a patient’s symptoms, (Letts, 0033: the patient provides information regarding a lesion which allows a user to create a body map/avatar of a digital representation of a human body including the location of lesion on the avatar) wherein said digital healthcare records are stored in a database, which is accessible via a network, by a patient and at least one physician; (Letts, 0034: the record is stored in database)
(D) receiving from said patient mobile application an opt-in request to locate a nearby physician and facilitate an in-person appointment scheduling request; (Letts, 0063: the system allows a patient to schedule an office visit with a physician within distance d that has availability)
(E) receiving from said patient mobile application an approval to participate in, an in-person medical examination according to said in-person appointment scheduling request (Letts, 0064: a reservation is sent to the treating physician, which results in the patient being seen by the physician (0065), meaning the appointment was approved)
(F) transmitting said in-person appointment scheduling request to said physician mobile application via said network; (Letts, 0064: a reservation is sent to the treating physician)
(G) receiving an acceptance of said in-person appointment scheduling request from said physician mobile application; (Letts, 0064: the reservation is sent to the physician, and the patient is seen by the physician, see 0065)
(H) utilizing, in combination, said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records stored in said database and accessible via said network, (Letts, 0062: the record) to complete a patient’s in-person medical examination;3 and (Letts, 0062: the record is categorized according to lesion type (e.g., a predictive diagnosis), and the physician sees the patient in-person, see 0066)
(I) utilizing said physician mobile application, said digital healthcare records and data obtained during an in-person patient medical examination to prescribe a customized patient treatment plan,4 which is added to said digital healthcare records and stored in said database. (Letts, 0067: following the in person appointment (see 0066) a dermatopathologist, receives the record and performs further analysis to render a diagnosis)
Letts discloses a program module 125 as part of the system 100, (Letts, 0035). However, Letts does not explicitly that an application is transmitted and installed on a patient and physician device, nor the pay functionality of the Present Claims.
Farooqi teaches transmitting a patient mobile application to a patient mobile device, (Farooqi, 0050: an application is transmitted to a mobile device via an enterprise application store, and the applications are used on a patient’s smartphone, see 0049) wherein when said patient mobile application is installed on said patient mobile device (Farooqi, 0048: the application is downloaded, e.g. installed, by the patient, for example on user device 401 see 0049)
transmitting a physician mobile application to a physician mobile device (Farooqi, 0050: an application is transmitted to a mobile device via an enterprise application store, and the applications are used on a physician’s smartphone, see 0046) when said physician mobile application is installed on said physician mobile device, (Farooqi, 0046: the application used on the physician’s smartphone, which requires it to be installed)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Letts to include the application installed on devices, as taught by Farooqi, because Farooqi teaches the application allows the healthcare provider to determine health conditions of the patients and predict healthcare requirements (Farooqi, 0046) and allows patients to track compliance and adherence to a personalized prescription (Farooqi, 0044).
Karnati teaches receiving, an approval pay for an in-person examination (Karnati, 0099: consent is provided by the consumer in relation to billing arrangements for services)
plurality of differential diagnostic questions (Karnati, 0080: the questionnaire is construed as a series of questions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Letts to include an Appointment scheduling system and method as taught by Karnati with the combination of Letts and Farooqi with the motivation of providing users a platform or scheduling the most-cost effective appointments, thereby reducing healthcare costs for consumers and improving physician-patient communication.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein a patient can view said digital healthcare records comprising said modifiable anatomical avatar through said patient mobile application, (Letts, 0033: the avatar is viewable on the client device, which includes a mobile phone, see 0028) and a corresponding physician can view said digital healthcare records comprising said modifiable anatomical avatar through said physician mobile application, allowing a physician digital access to said same modifiable anatomical avatar as modified by a patient, (Letts, 0033: the avatar is part of the record, which is viewable on the client device, by a physician, see 0034) in order to illustrate a patient’s self- reported medical symptoms, (Letts, 0033: the location of lesion provided by the patient is shown on the avatar) and to illustrate a physician’s corresponding confirmed clinical findings. (Letts, 0028: users include both patients and physicians, and users can select locations of lesions to generate an anatomical marker, (0033) which is displayed on the avatar, see 0069)
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein said plurality of digital platforms comprises a system triage platform, (Letts, 0034: a preliminary diagnosis based off the record) providing rapid physician analysis based on a patient's self-reported symptoms and said digital healthcare records submitted via said patient mobile application and a corresponding physician's clinical findings and treatments submitted via said physician mobile application. (Letts, 0034: the preliminary diagnosis is provided by a physician via a client device)
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein said plurality of digital platforms comprise a non-emergency platform, allowing a patient with non-emergency medical needs to request medical services via said patient mobile application from a physician via said physician mobile application (Letts, 0034: the preliminary diagnosis is provided by a physician via a client device)
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein said patient mobile application is integrated with said digital healthcare records, (Letts, 0033: the patient profile, which tracks a progression of the lesion, is accessible via client device 107) comprising all captured healthcare information from a patient’s self-reported symptoms, said modifiable anatomical avatar as modified by a patient in order to illustrate a patient’s self-reported medical symptoms, and a physician’s recorded clinical findings and treatments, (Letts, 0034: the patient profile includes multiple records (0033), and would include the second record that encompasses the first record of patient data, and the second record with physician data, see also 0014) wherein said digital healthcare records are formatted to be stored in and retrieved from memory, (Letts, 0034: the patient profile is stored in a database, and can be retrieved upon request, see 0069) permitting a patient to access said digital healthcare records and (Letts, 0069: the patient can retrieve the patient profile, which includes patient data, upon request) share said digital healthcare records with any medical providers or healthcare agencies of a patient’s choice. (Letts, 0069: the system provides “seamless access” to the first and second records (the patient profile) to both patients and physicians)
Claim 4, as can best be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110231205 A1 to Letts (“Letts”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170364655 A1 to Farooqi (“Farooqi”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160379173 A1 to Karnati (“Karnati”) in further view of “Does 911 get GPS coordinates from cellphone callers?” to Jamison (“Jamison”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein said plurality of digital platforms comprise an emergency response platform, (Letts, 0034: the preliminary diagnosis is provided by a physician vie a client device) allowing a patient with emergency medical needs to receive a prompt via said patient mobile application to dial an emergency services response number such as 911 via said patient mobile application to request emergency services. (Letts, 0028: the client device can be a mobile phone, which would allow a user to call 911, e.g. facilitate 911 response)
Letts does not explicitly, but Jamison teaches dialing 911 to dispatch emergency services a patient’s current location (Jamison: calling 911 from a cell phone provides your GPS location to the 911 call center)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Letts to include providing the GPS location of 911 callers, as taught by Jamison, because Jamison teaches that the GPS location is 911 callers in useful to providing emergency services.
Claims 7-8, as can best be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110231205 A1 to Letts (“Letts”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170364655 A1 to Farooqi (“Farooqi”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160379173 A1 to Karnati (“Karnati”) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160379511 A1 to Dawson (“Dawson”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein said modifiable anatomical avatar comprises a modifiable virtual matrix, (Letts, 0014: digital body map) which produces illustrations of anatomical regions causing a patient’s symptoms, , (Letts, 0033: the patient provides information regarding a lesion which allows a user to create an avatar of a digital representation of a human body including the location of lesion on the avatar including the digital body map) records an examining physician’s clinical findings (Letts, 0034: the patient profile includes multiple records (0033), and would include the second record that encompasses the first record of patient data, and the second record with physician data, see also 0014) allows both a patient and a physician to locate a patient’s symptoms (Letts, 0028: users include both patients and physicians, and users can select locations of lesions to generate an anatomical marker, (0033) which is displayed on the avatar, see 0069) provides appropriate timely medical treatment needed to help cure a patient's illness, and facilitates providing immediate comprehensive medical diagnoses, assessments and treatments, (Letts, 0037: the system provides a clinical diagnosis cures the disease).
The combination does not explicitly recite, but Dawson teaches clinical findings of the entire human organ system, (Dawson, 0028: health and wellbeing factors pertain to organ system function) and severity of physical disease or injury (Dawson, 0142: assessing factors, such as the severity of a particular unresolvable disease) thereby establishing a consistent protocol in healthcare access and delivery.5 (Dawson, 0271: a personalized recommended content engine and search engine is provided, which is designed to match content with an individual's profile, thereby delivering a recommended content service)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to include the above elements, as taught by Dawson, to improve healthcare because Dawson teaches that the disclosed system and method can enhance health knowledge and promote symptom management, treatment, and beneficial lifestyle change by such individuals.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses each of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein a patient’s self-reported symptoms are systematically correlated with said modifiable anatomical avatar, (Letts, 0028: users include both patients and physicians, and users can select locations of lesions to generate an anatomical marker, (0033) which is displayed on the avatar, see 0069)
The combination does not explicitly recite, but Dawson teaches displaying each appropriate human organ system (Dawson, 0028: a pictorial visualization is used to indicate wellbeing factors that pertain to organ systems)
which improves the measurable physiological impact on the respective human organ systems, and facilitates capturing and monitoring multiple organ systems simultaneously, (Dawson, 0033: monitoring heart rate, activity, blood pressure, glucose, etc., to determine if the patient needs treatment, see 0153) and improves recovery prognosis.6 (Dawson, 0010: the invention provides better representations and corresponding understanding of, health and wellbeing data of an individual, which improve self-care, and lead to better health outcomes)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to include the above elements, as taught by Dawson, to improve healthcare because Dawson teaches that the disclosed system and method can enhance health knowledge and promote symptom management, treatment, and beneficial lifestyle change by such individuals.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shyam Goswami whose telephone number is (303)297-4283. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30AM-6:30PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on (571) 272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SHYAM M GOSWAMI
Examiner
Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.
2 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.
3 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.
4 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.
5 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.
6 Examiner notes that all underlined clauses are merely intended use and are therefore given no patentable weight because the claim does not require the use of the limitation due to the conditional language. See MPEP 2114. Are is presented merely for illustrated purposes, and any deficiency in the cited will not result in a second non-final rejection.