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 .
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and system for analyzing information. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(lIl), concepts relating to mental processes are drawn to abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the provision of generic computer components does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the factors set forth in MPEP 2106. Such factors include:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state of being;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Further guidance is provided by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Alice held that a method of mitigating settlement risk was drawn to an abstract idea. Alice further held that the performance of the method performed on a computer did not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea, and thus the claimed invention was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement]” an abstract idea “on ... a computer,” Mayo, supra, at_(slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our §101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F.3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo, 566 U.S., at_(slip op., at 8-9).
Id at pp 1983-1984. Alice further held that apparatus claims drawn to a computer system were subject to the same analysis as the method claims, and were also not patentable subject matter:
Petitioner's claims to a computer system and a computer-readable medium fail for substantially the same reasons. Petitioner conceded below that its media claims rise or fall with its method claims. En Banc Response Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 11 -1301 (CA Fed.) p. 50, n. 3. As to its system claims, petitioner emphasizes that those claims recite “specific hardware” configured to perform “specific computerized functions.” Brief for Petitioner 53. But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware— a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller” and “data storage unit” capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method bclaims. See 717 F.3d, at 1290 (Lourie, J., concurring). As a result, none of the hardware recited by the system claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers.” Id., at 1291 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S., at 610-611).
Id. at pp 1984-1985. Turning to the claimed invention, a method and system for receiving and analyzing information, and displaying the results of the analysis, is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ll)(D) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 -52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Each of the recited steps – receiving physiological data of a user, generating physiological profiles, receiving a plurality of projections from a virtual model, generating a plurality of weighted values, ranking a set of suggested activities, and generating an output including a predetermined number of suggested activities – is a mental process pertaining to receiving and analyzing information. The method is performed by a generic computing device which under Alice is not sufficient to impart patentability to the system or method.
Consideration of the factors listed above pertaining to what is significantly more than the judicial exception, as viewed in light of the holding in Alice, weighs against patentability. While the method includes the use of a computer, the method does not involve an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology. Rather, generic computer components are used in their usual and customary way to perform the method. Mere automation of mental processes to improve efficiency is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015), as cited in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed method does not require the use of a particular machine, as a generic computer system is not a “particular machine” under Alice, nor does it result in the transformation of a physical article. Rather, the result of the claimed method is a determination as to whether a calculated metric is outside a given set of ranges, which itself is an abstract concept.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-21 also fail to recite limitations which would overcome the rejection. These claims are generally directed to the types of information being received and analyzed as part of the method. Again, generic computer components are being used in their routine and conventional way. Because the claimed invention does not involve significantly more than the abstract concept of analyzing information, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed. Mohammed discloses or suggested each of the limitations recited in claim 1, including:
a method for generating activity recommendations in a diabetes treatment plan (see para. [0008]: "platform generates personalized recommendations for a patient outlining a treatment plan for improving the patient's metabolic health" and para. [0046]: “techniques described herein are described with reference to diabetes")
comprising: receiving, with a processor, physiological data fora person with diabetes (PwD) (see e.g. para. [0108]: "rack and analyze function and physiology of a patient's heart, liver, and pancreas", para. [0032]: "biological data recorded from a plurality of sources including wearable sensors (or other types of loT sensors), lab tests, etc., and food or diet-related data recorded by the patient’),
preference data for the PwD (see e.g. para. [0099]: "food preferences", para. [0112]: "assign a preference to the activities recorded by the patient. For example, if a patient wishes to engage in more exercise, future treatment recommendations may be generated with an emphasis on more frequent exercise")
and a plurality of suggested activities for the PwD (para. [0084]: "the recommendation module 460 generates multiple candidate recommendations and communicates each candidate recommendation to digital twin module 450. Each candidate recommendation prescribes a different possible intervention (e.g., adjustments or changes in a patient's nutrition, exercise, and sleep habits)";
generating, with the processor, a plurality of physiological profiles for the PwD, the plurality of physiological profiles comprising: a baseline physiological profile based on the physiological data for the PwD (para. [0079]: "baseline metabolic state"; para. [0126]: "the baseline model may be further trained to generate a personalized representation of a patient's metabolic health");
and a plurality of activity physiological profiles, each activity physiological profile corresponding to one activity in the plurality of suggested activities, and each activity physiological profile being based on the physiological data for the PwD and a modification of the physiological data associated with the one activity in the plurality of suggested activities corresponding to the activity physiological profile (see e.g. para. [0032]: "The patient health management platform 130 predicts a patient's metabolic response based on periodically recorded patient data (e.g., nutrition data, symptom data, lifestyle data). Accordingly, a patient's metabolic response describes a change in metabolic health for a patient resulting from the food they most recently consumed and their current metabolic health"; para. [0033]: "information describing a patient's particular biological (i.e., metabolic) response to a food");
providing, with the processor, the plurality of physiological profiles to a virtual physiological model (see “rule-based model" and "cohorting model" in Fig. 4);
receiving, with the processor, a plurality of projections for the PwD from the virtual physiological model, each projection in the plurality of projections providing an estimated change in physiological characteristic in the PwD during a predetermined time period corresponding to one physiological profile in the plurality of physiological profiles (para. [0084]: "recommendation module 460 generates multiple candidate recommendations and communicates each candidate recommendation to digital twin module 450. Each candidate recommendation prescribes a different possible intervention (e.g., adjustments or changes in a patient's nutrition, exercise, and sleep habits). For each candidate recommendation, the digital twin module 450 predicts a patient's metabolic response that would result from adherence to the candidate recommendation. Based on the predicted response, the recommendation module 460 compares multiple candidate recommendations to confirm which candidate recommendations will have the most positive effects on the patient's metabolic health. The digital twin module 450 uses a combination of metabolic models to predict a future metabolic state of a that would result if the patient adhered to the recommendation"; see also claim 6: "generating a plurality of candidate recommendations for improving the metabolic state of the patient, each candidate recommendation outlining a unique food regimen, medication schedule, and set of lifestyle adjustments");
generating, with the processor, a plurality of weighted values based on the plurality of suggested activities and the preference data, each weighted value corresponding to a likelihood of the PwD adhering to a corresponding one of the suggested activities (see para. [0112]: "assign a preference to each food item recorded by the patient (e.g., a label indicating whether the patient enjoyed the food item or not). In conjunction, the nutrition twin module 630 and the taste twin module 660 may compare two foods with a similar metabolic effect and prioritize whichever food the patient enjoyed more. The food item that the patient enjoyed more will be carried forward in other future patient-specific recommendations. The lifestyle twin module 660 communicates with the exercise twin module 645 and the sleep twin module 655 to assign a preference to the activities recorded by the patient’; the twin modules being involved in the recommendation of candidate activities);
ranking, with the processor, each activity in the plurality of suggested activities based on the estimated change in the physiological characteristic of a projection in the plurality of projections associated with the activity relative to a baseline physiological projection in the plurality of projections corresponding to the baseline physiological profile and scaled by the weighted value corresponding to each activity (suggested in claim 6: "ranking the plurality of candidate recommendations based on an improvement of each candidate recommendation on the metabolic state of the patient");
and generating, with the processor, an output including a predetermined number of the plurality of suggested activities in order based on the ranking to identify one or more suggested activities that provide a greatest change in the physiological characteristic given the likelihood of the PwD adhering to the suggested activities (claim 6: "generating the a patient-specific treatment recommendation based on a highest ranked candidate recommendation" in combination with claim 1: “providing, for display to the patient, the patient-specific treatment recommendation to the patient device”, the predetermined number being one).
With respect to claims 2 and 13, each of the recited types of activities is disclosed at paragraph [0008] of Mohammed. With respect to claims 4, 6, 15 and 17, the recited limitations are suggested by Mohammed, which teaches at paragraph [0082] that a hemoglobin level and a body mass are tracked as part of a user’s profile. With respect to claims 7, 9, 18 and 20, the recited limitations are suggested by Mohammed, which teaches at paragraphs [0029-30] and [0036] that various information is transmitted among various devices including an electronic device of the user via a network. With respect to claims 8 and 19, the recited limitations are suggested by Mohammed, which teaches at paragraph [0112] that various information is stored in a database. With respect to claims 10 and 21, the recited time periods are obvious variations on the teachings of Mohammed, which discloses at paragraph [0056] that data “may be recorded at longer intervals, for example bi-weekly or monthly”. With respect to claim 11, Mohammed discloses at paragraphs [0037-38] a system for implementing the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1 comprising a memory, a network interface device and a processor.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of Lavi. Mohammed discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the received information comprising survey data, geographic data and demographic data as recited. Each of these features is suggested by Lavi, at col. 11, lines 31-51 (survey data), col. 2, line 57 to col. 3, line 3 (geographic data) and col. 3, lines 6-8 (demographic data), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive and informative user profile on which to base suggested activities.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of Christie. Mohammed discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of filtering in response to an expected exceeding of a hemoglobin reduction threshold as recited. This feature is suggested at col. 13, lines 36-34 of Christie, which discloses a generation of suggested activities based in part on a hemoglobin A1c threshold, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing suggested activities which are more beneficial to a particular user based on their profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
December 3, 2025