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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 10 is cancelled
Claim(s) 13-14 are new
Claim(s) 1-9,11-12 are amended
Claim(s) 1-9,11-14 are pending
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 1-9,11-14 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a wearable device for appointment retrieval and adherence, which are within a statutory category. The limitations of:
Claim 1
search for a scheduled implementation date and time of a health checkup of the wearer by accessing a health checkup information storage that stores health checkup information related to the health checkup;
acquire the biological information of the wearer and position information of the wearer for a predetermined period until the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup detect an ineligible matter that is ineligible for implementing the health checkup by monitoring the biological information and the position information in the predetermined period:
and in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected notifying of the ineligible matter.
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a wearable device comprising processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the wearable device having a processor, this claim encompasses a person monitoring a patient before a health checkup. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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 element of a wearable device comprising a processor that implements the identified abstract idea. The wearable device comprising a processor is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic wearable device. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional elements of a biological sensor and position sensor. The biological sensor and position sensor merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a wearable device comprising a processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a biological sensor and position sensor were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9,11-14 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) storing the detection criterion, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) notifying about the detection criterion, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) diagnostic storage, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5,7-9 merely describe(s) detection beyond the detection criterion, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) detecting ineligible behavior of the wearer, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 11 merely describe(s) changing the scheduled appointment date and time, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) when to change the scheduled appointment, which further defines the abstract idea
Claim(s) 13 merely describe(s) displaying prompt to the wearer, which further defines the abstract idea.
The feature of a display screen is interpreted to be part of the generic wearable device, and is analyzed in the same manner.
Claim(s) 14 merely describe(s) detecting the ineligible matter, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1-6,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YOON et al (US Publication No. 20170124523) in view of Farley et al (US Publication No. 10831568) in view of Reynolds et al (US Publication No. 20170277852) in view of Shelton et al (US Publication No. 20220233102).
Regarding Claim 1
YOON teaches a wearable device. that is worn by a wearer, comprising:
a biological sensor, configured to monitor biological information of the wearer [YOON at Para. 0007 teaches the root of various types of additional information provided from such a wearable device to a user is pieces of information measured from the user. Accordingly, sensors for measuring various types of information about a user need to be mounted on a wearable device. As the type of sensors mounted on a wearable device is increased, many pieces of information about a user may be measured. For this reason, a heart rate measurement sensor, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, and a step number measurement sensor tend to be essentially mounted on a recent wearable device];
a position sensor, configured to detect position information of the wearer [YOON at Para. 0007];
and a processor, configured to [YOON at Para. 0087 teaches each of the health status check unit 230, the appointment processing unit 240, and the medical treatment completion processing unit 250 may be implemented using a processor required to execute a program on a computing device.]:
and detect an ineligible matter that is ineligible for implementing the health checkup by monitoring the biological information and the position information in the predetermined period [YOON at Para. 0063 teaches furthermore, if the change pattern of a heart rate is out of a change pattern permission range included in heart beat reference information, the control unit 120 may determine the heart health status of a user to be abnormal. If the health status of a user is abnormal, the control unit 120 sends measurement information, including biological information and location information, to the hospital management apparatus.]:
YOON does not teach search for a scheduled implementation date and time of a health checkup of the wearer by accessing a health checkup information storage that stores health checkup information related to the health checkup;
acquire the biological information of the wearer from the biological sensor and position information of the wearer from the position sensor for a predetermined period until the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup,
and in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected notifying of the ineligible matter on the wearable device.
Farley teaches implementation date and time of a health checkup of the wearer by accessing a health checkup information storage that stores health checkup information related to the health checkup [Farley at Col 4 Lines 14-19 teaches in addition to detecting the user's interaction with the user device 102, the electronic alarm management program 110 may scan and parse different applications or programs on the user device 102 to determine, using natural language processing, if there are any upcoming events for that particular user (interpret to combine with doctors appointment of YOON)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine wearable device of YOON with the schedule search of Farley with the motivation to improve electronic alarm management.
YOON/Farley do not teach acquire the biological information of the wearer from the biological sensor and position information of the wearer from the position sensor for a predetermined period until the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup,
and in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected notifying of the ineligible matter on the wearable device.
Reynolds teaches acquire the biological information of the wearer from the biological sensor and position information of the wearer from the position sensor for a predetermined period until the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup [Reynolds at Para. 0040 teaches the healthcare application 12 can prompt a PWD to take measurements and/or log supplemental health data according to adherence burst prompting. Adherence burst prompting helps a PWD to take blood glucose measurements and log supplemental health data more frequently and with more detail during a predefined time period. This time period can be determined, for example, by an HCP, so that the PWD can provide sufficient health data to develop a treatment plan without requiring the PWD to take more measurements and log more health data than is necessary. For example, an HCP may only require detailed health data for a two-week time period just before the PWD's next appointment with the HCP (interpret to combine with sensor data of YOON)],
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY with the predetermined time of REYNOLDS with the motivation to improve the development of a treatment plan, systems and methods [Reynolds at Para. 0015].
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS do not teach and in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected notifying of the ineligible matter on the wearable device.
Shelton teaches and in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected notifying of the ineligible matter on the wearable device [Shelton at Para. 0455 teaches critical irregularities may require immediate attention and/or trigger notification of the user and/or contacting of HCPs (interpret to combine with wearable device of YOON)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY, REYNOLDS with the wearable device of Shelton with the motivation to improve patient outcomes.
Regarding Claim 2
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the health checkup information storage stores a detection criterion for the ineligible matter as the health checkup information, and wherein the ineligible matter is detected using the detection criterion [Shelton at Para. 0457 teaches for example, exclusion criteria may use a wearable monitor. In an example, the wearable monitor may assess levels of smoke exposure prior to lung surgery. The procedure may be cancelled and/or delayed based on the exposure. The procedure may be cancelled and/or delayed based on reaching a limit of exposure. Smoke exposure may include first-hand smoke, second-hand smoke, environmental exposure, and/or any combination of the like. Smoke exposure may impact procedures. Smoke cessation may associate with improved post-operative outcomes. In an example, the wearable monitor may assess coagulation state of blood. Coagulation state of blood may lie assessed based on an international normalized ration (INR) The wearable monitor may determine whether coumadin was stopped at the appropriate time. Intra-operative bleeding complications may be lessened based on when coumadin was stopped. Higher INR may associate with higher incidence of blood transfusions. Clotting times may associate with higher incidence of blood transfusions].
Regarding Claim 3
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 2,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the processor notifies of the detection criterion [Shelton at Para. 0455 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 4
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach according to claim 3,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the health checkup infom1ation storage stores a diagnostic item in the health checkup of the wearer as the health checkup information, and the detection criterion is determined for each diagnostic item [Shelton at Para. 0457 (see Claim 2 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 5
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the ineligible matter detection function is a function of detecting that the biological information of the wearer is beyond a predetermined eligibility range, as the ineligible matter [Shelton at Para. 0457 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 6
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the processor executes a behavior detection function of detecting a behavior of the wearer, and wherein the ineligible matter detection function is a function of detecting an ineligible behavior, which is ineligible for implementing of the health checkup, among the behaviors detected by the behavior detection function [Shelton at Para. 0457 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 14
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton further teach wherein the processor detects the ineligible matter in response to a measured value of a predetermined measurement in the biological information is not within a predetermined eligibility range in the predetermined period [YOON at Para. 0063 teaches furthermore, if the change pattern of a heart rate is out of a change pattern permission range included in heart beat reference information, the control unit 120 may determine the heart health status of a user to be abnormal (interpret to combine with predetermined period of Reynolds)].
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YOON, Farley, Reyholds, Shelton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MedPark et al (Instructions for Preparations of Medical Checkup Program.” ).
Regarding Claim 7
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 6,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton do not teach wherein the ineligible behavior is eating or drinking outside a permissible period.
MedPark teaches wherein the ineligible behavior is eating or drinking outside a permissible period [MedPark at Page 2 teaches do not eat or drink anything for 8-12 hours before the checkup. (If thirsty, sip a little water)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY, REYNOLDS, Shelton with the protocol of MedPark with the motivation to better ensure the most accurate test results are generated.
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YOON, Farley, Reyholds, Shelton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NYUCC et al ( “Maximize Your Walk-In Physical Exam: Avoid These 7 Common Mistakes with Our Essential Guide.”).
Regarding Claim 8
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 6,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton do not teach wherein the ineligible behavior is implementation of exercise beyond a permissible range.
NYUCC teaches teach wherein the ineligible behavior is implementation of exercise beyond a permissible range [NYUCC at Page 2 teaches this is one of the things you must do in order to pass your physical exam. Avoid exercising or engaging in any physically strenuous activity the night before or the morning of your assessment. Physical activity may cause an increase in your heart rate and blood pressure].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY, REYNOLDS, Shelton with the instructions of NYUCC with the motivation to best prepare a patient for testing.
Regarding Claim 9
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 6,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton do not teach wherein the ineligible behavior is ingestion or administration of a medicine beyond a permissible range.
NYUCC teaches teach wherein the ineligible behavior is implementation of exercise beyond a permissible range [NYUCC at Page 2 teaches this is one of the things you must do in order to pass your physical exam. Avoid exercising or engaging in any physically strenuous activity the night before or the morning of your assessment. Physical activity may cause an increase in your heart rate and blood pressure].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY, REYNOLDS, Shelton with the instructions of NYUCC with the motivation to best prepare a patient for testing.
Claims 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YOON, Farley, Reyholds, Shelton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ELLIOT et al (US Publication No. 20220157451).
Regarding Claim 11
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton do not teach wherein the computer-executable program causes the computer to execute a health checkup date and time change function of changing the scheduled implementation date and time of a health checkup stored in the health checkup information storage.
ELLIOT teaches wherein the computer-executable program causes the computer to execute a health checkup date and time change function of changing the scheduled implementation date and time of a health checkup stored in the health checkup information storage [ELLIOT at Para. 0034 teaches the appointment modality may be configured to automatically attempt to reschedule an appointment if a conflict arises (interpret to combine with detection criterion of Shelton)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON, FARLEY, REYNOLDS, Shelton with the rescheduling of ELLIOT with the motivation to improve a quality of care provided by the healthcare program.
Regarding Claim 12
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton/ELLIOT teach the wearable device according to claim 11,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton/ELLIOT further teach wherein the health checkup date and time change function is enabled in a case in which the ineligible matter is detected [Shelton at Para. 0457 (see Claim 1 for explanation; cancelling/delay in procedure interpreted as health checkup date and time change function)].
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over YOON, Farley, Reyholds, Shelton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ave et al (US Publication No. 20210350334).
Regarding Claim 13
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton teach the wearable device according to claim 1,
YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton do not teach wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to the ineligible matter being notified on the wearable device, display a screen on the wearable device to prompt the wearer to change the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup.
Ave teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to the ineligible matter being notified on the wearable device, display a screen on the wearable device to prompt the wearer to change the scheduled implementation date and time of the health checkup [Ave at Para. 0042 teaches further, the user interaction module 214 may send notifications to the user 112 regarding scheduling or rescheduling of appointments (e.g., setting appointments, rescheduling appointments, and so on) (interpret to combine with wearable device of YOON and health checkup rescheduling of ELLIOT)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of YOON/FARLEY/REYNOLDS/Shelton with the interface of Ave with the motivation to improve the consolidation of calendar appointments.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9,11-14, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
Note that Claim 1 has been amended to include "biological sensor" and "position sensor" in a wearable device with the configuration of "monitoring the biological information and the position information in the predetermined period" as well as the configuration of "notifying of the ineligible matter on the wearable device", and therefore Claim 1 are not merely organizing human activity as indicated on Page 9 of the Office Action. (Step 2A Prong 1: No).
The wearable device, equipped with the biological sensor and the position sensor, is capable of detecting an ineligible condition that renders the user ineligible for a scheduled health checkup. This is achieved by continuously monitoring biological information and position information for a predetermined time period leading up to the scheduled date and time of the health checkup. Upton detection of an ineligible condition, the device actively notifies the user on the wearable device. Such notification ensures that the health checkup can be properly rescheduled or prepared for, even if the wearer is unfamiliar with the necessary instructions or preparation procedures. This feature provides a specific and concrete improvement over conventional health monitoring devices, which lack such proactive eligibility checks and notifications. (Step 2A Prong 2: Yes) Based on the aforesaid rationales, Claim I should be thus allowable under 35 U.S.C.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sensors merely provide data. The abstract idea of data processing and alerting the wearer is classified as “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that initially, the Applicant has not stated why the noted features provided a practical application. The Examiner assumes that the Applicant is arguing that a technical problem is present. The problem of monitoring patients before a health checkup is not a technical problem; the wearable device did not cause this problem. If no technical problem is present, then a practical application based on this measure is not present in the claims and the claims remain ineligible.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9,11-14, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, these arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment and/or afforded by the present RCE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Bitran et al (US Publication No. 20180144101) discloses a system for Identifying diagnosis-relevant health information.
SANDERFORD et al (US Publication No. 20170124526) discloses systems and methods for scheduling patient appointments.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683