DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
01. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
02. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
03. Applicant argues that the prior art reference, Douglas, does not teach all of the Applicant’s claimed limitations. The claims have been amended to recite that the biometric device is “worn by each of the one or more clients”. Examiner respectfully agrees that Douglas does not teach this claimed limitation. However, a new prior art reference, Stenquist, has been relied upon to teach this claim limitation.
With respect to the rest of the claim limitations, Applicant discusses most of the claim limitations found in claim 1 and argues that Douglas does not teach each of those claim limitations. However, the arguments presented by Applicant appear to be the same or very similar to arguments that have been previously submitted and have been responded to by the Examiner, specifically in the last two office actions (08/26/2025, 02/05/2025). Since Examiner has already responded to the Applicant’s arguments with respect to each of these claim limitations, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to those responses previously submitted. Additionally, Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant has not directly responded to any of the Examiner’s arguments that were provided in the last two office actions. Regardless, since the same claim limitations are again being argued by Applicant and similar arguments are presented, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the previous two office actions.
During the interview on September 04, 2025, Applicant’s Representative discussed two specific claim limitations, namely the “create a baseline” and the “establishing goals” claim limitations. With respect to these limitations, Examiner has argued in the previous office action (August 26, 2025), that these claim limitations are disclosed by Douglas. Examiner specifically explained that the claim limitations are rather broad, as neither the claims nor the specification provide a definition for “behavioral data” or “performance data”. Applicant continues to argue that Douglas does not teach these claim limitations, but Examiner cannot find any definition for these terms in either the claims or specification that would explain that they are anything more than any metric associated with a person (weight, blood pressure, a physical activity performed by the client, etc.). Additionally, it was explained by Examiner that Douglas teaches that the program created for each of the patients is specifically for that patient, and isn’t a generic program for all clients. Applicant has not appeared to address or respond to Examiner’s arguments from the last office action and/or interview.
Double Patenting
04. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
05. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 20 of US Patent 11,809,431 in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159). Although the conflicted claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application recite the same limitations as in the prior patent, with a few changes, some of which broaden the claims and others which just give a definition to the claimed features. Please see table below:
Application 18/502,813
Patent 11,809,431
1. A method for tracking progression toward goals, the method comprising:
receiving input establishing one or more clients, wherein the one or more clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance;
assigning each of the one or more clients to an account;
create a baseline associated with each of the one or more clients, the baseline being derived from behavioral data or performance data associated with each of the one or more clients;
establishing goals for each of the one or more clients based at least in part on the baseline for each of the one or more clients;
automatically capturing data utilizing one or more monitoring devices associated with each of the one or more clients including at least a wearable biometric device;
compiling data associated with each of the one or more clients from the one or monitoring devices;
storing the compiled data associated with each of the one or more clients in a server available through one or more networks;
determining whether the goals are being met in response to thresholds for the compiled data defined in relation to the goals and the baseline;
automatically communicating alerts in response to the compiled data varying from at least one of the thresholds to become significant for one of the one or more clients.
1. A method for tracking progression toward goals, the method comprising:
receiving input establishing one or more clients, wherein the one or more clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance;
assigning the one or more clients to one or more providers, wherein the one or more providers include at least one or more individuals available to treat or assist the one or more clients;
creating a baseline associated with the one or more clients;
setting one or more goals for each of the one or more clients;
compiling data associated with the one or more clients over time, wherein the data includes at least one of weight data and provider data;
storing the compiled data associated with the one or more clients in a server available through one or more networks;
determining, for each goal of the one or more goals, a series of thresholds that represents progress towards the goal;
determining whether progress towards each goal is being achieved by comparing the series of thresholds that represents progress towards the goal against the compiled data and the baseline for the compiled data; and
automatically communicating alerts in response to the compiled data varying from one or more of the series of thresholds to become significant for one of the one or more clients.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the baseline is established utilizing data from 1) one of the one or more clients and 2) one or more monitoring devices.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the baseline is established utilizing at least one of weight data, provider data, and client data.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the input is utilized to automatically establish accounts associated with each of the one or more clients.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the input is utilized to establish accounts associated with the one or more clients.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: intervening with one of the one or more clients in response to the alerts being automatically communicated.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: intervening with one of the one or more clients in response to the alerts.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the server is accessed through a cloud network, wherein the one or more monitoring devices includes biometric devices, and wherein a client management program is executed by communications devices utilized by the one or more clients to receive the data and track progress of the goals.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the server is accessed through a cloud network, and wherein a client management program is executed by communications devices utilized by the one or more providers to receive the data and track progress of the goals.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing an assessment of the one or more clients to determine the baseline associated with each of the one or more clients.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing an assessment of the one or more clients to determine the baseline associated with the one or more clients.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the goals is associated with a plan of action for achieving each of the goals.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each goal is associated with a plan of action for achieving the goals.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: recommending goals to the one or more clients in response to receiving the input.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: recommending goals to the one or more clients and the one or more providers in response to receiving the input.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying the goals in response to the compiled data varying from the baseline to become significant.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying the one or more goals in response to the compiled data.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein modifications are determined to be required if the one of the one or more clients are unable to achieve the goals associated with the one or more clients.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein modifications are determined to be required if the one of the one or more clients are unable to achieve the goals associated with the one or more clients.
Claims 1 – 20 of US Patent 11,809,431 substantially disclose the claimed invention but fail to explicitly teach “automatically capturing data” by utilizing “a wearable biometric device worn by each of the one or more clients” . However, Stenquist teaches a biometric device that is worn by patients to obtain, automatically, and transmit biometric data (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Stenquist into the invention of the instant application in order to allow for better monitoring of patients’ health so that the data could become available to clinicians quicker so that they could provide the necessary care for their patients in a timelier manner.
Additionally, the claims in the instant application further define the baseline to define that it is based on behavioral data or performance data. However, the prior patent recites that the data includes weight data and provider data. Given that none of these claim limitations have any specific definitions associated with them, the behavioral/performance data can simply be a subset of the weight/provider data, as they encompass overlapping definitions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
06. 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.
07. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
08. Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (WO 99/03045), hereinafter “Douglas”, in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159).
Consider claim 1, Douglas discloses a method for tracking goal progression (page 2 line 36 – page 3 line 2), the method comprising:
receiving input establishing clients, wherein the clients are individuals receiving treatment or assistance (page 6 line 28 – page 7 line 16, patients are entered into the system, which includes information about the patient’s conditions and what treatment they are to received) ;
assigning each of the clients to an account (page 8 lines 28 – 31, page 11 line 6 – page 12 line 2, the patients are assigned to a behavior modification program, which is something that can be logged into)
create a baseline associated with each of the one or more clients, the baseline being derived from behavioral data or performance data associated with each of the one or more clients (page 6 line 28 – page 7 line 32, a patient has an initial evaluation that determines their baseline, which can include the current state of their vitals, characteristics, health, etc.);
establishing goals for each of the one or more clients, based at least in part on the baseline for each of the one or more clients (page 7 line 29 – page 8 line 9, goals and milestones are generated for the patients, which are based on the initial evaluation and baseline of the patient);
automatically capturing data utilizing one or more monitoring devices associated with each of the one or more clients including at least a wearable biometric device… (page 10 lines 10 – 24, page 20 lines 3 – 44, the patient’s characteristics, such as vitals, are determined, which can be obtained by way of devices, which can include a device that determines a patient’s blood pressure. The updated data received about patients is managed, including the patient’s vitals);
compiling data associated with each of the one or more clients from the one or more monitoring devices (page 20 lines 3 – 44, the patient’s characteristics, such as vitals and progress towards goals, are determined, such that updated information about the patients is managed, including the patient’s vitals);
storing the compiled data associated with each of the one or more clients in a server available through one or more networks (page 8 lines 28 – 31, the patent data is stored on a server that is accessible through a network);
determining whether the goals are being met in response to threshold for the compiled data defined in relation to the goals and the baseline (page 11 line 8 – page 12 line 2, patient progress is monitored with respect to the goals, which includes determining if a certain level of progress is being made by the patient, which can be determined based on the patient’s initial state and assigned goals);
automatically communicating alerts in response to the compiled data varying from at least one of the thresholds to become significant for one or more of the clients (page 11 lines 11 – 15, an alarm can be triggered in response to patient data being significant, such as posing a health risk).
Although Douglas teaches using biometric devices to obtain patient data (page 10 lines 10 – 24), Douglas does not specifically teach that the biometric devices are worn by the client.
In the same field of endeavor, Stenquist discloses a method comprising:
a wearable biometric device worn by each of the one or more clients (paragraphs [0054], [0055], patients are provided with biometric devices that they wear, which provide biometric patient data that can be sent to a server for monitoring).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to incorporate the worn biometric devices taught by Stenquist into the patient monitoring system taught by Douglas for the purpose of allowing patient data to be obtained quicker and more efficiently, so that the data can be obtained by and reviewed either automatically or by doctors, so they a patient’s health can be more accurately determined, which would lead to the ability to intervene quicker in the event the patient needs medical care.
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
the baseline is established utilizing data from 1) one of the one or more clients and 2) one or more monitoring devices (page 6 line 28 – page 7 line 32, the baseline that is created for the patients can be obtained from the patient interacting with the system or through devices that capture patient information, such as their vitals).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
the input is utilized to automatically establish accounts associated with each of the one or more clients (page 8 lines 28 – 31, page 11 line 6 – page 12 line 2, the behavioral modification program is generated in response to the inputs provided to the system).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
intervening with one of the one or more clients in response to the alerts being automatically communicated (page 11 lines 11 – 19, an alarm can be triggered in response to a threatening situation with the patient).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
performing an assessment of the one or more clients to determine the baseline associated with each of the one or more clients (page 6 line 28 – page 7 line 32, a patient has an initial evaluation that determines their baseline, which can include the current state of their vitals, characteristics, etc.).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
each of the goals is associated with a plan of action for achieving each of the goals (page 7 line 5 – page 8 line 13, a program is created for the patient to assist in the achieving of goals).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
recommending goals to the one or more clients and the one or more providers in response to receiving the input (page 7 line 29 – page 8 line 9, goals are generated for the patients, which are based on the initial evaluation and baseline of the patient);
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
modifying the goals in response to the complied data varying from the baseline to become significant (page 8 lines 8 – 13, page 11 lines 18 – 34, changes can be made to the goals for the patients).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 8 above, Douglas discloses a method comprising:
modifications are determined to be required if the one of the one or more clients are unable to achieve the goals associated with the one or more clients (page 8 lines 8 – 13, page 11 lines 18 – 34, changes can be made to the goals for the patients in response to determining that progress is not appropriate for that goals).
Claim 11 recites nearly the same claim limitations to those found in claim 1, albeit with a few changes to the structure of the limitations. However, nearly the same limitations are recited, and claim 11 is therefore rejected under the same rationale with respect to claim 1 above.
Claims 12 – 14 recite nearly the same claim limitations found in claims 2, 4, and 7 (respectively), and are rejected under the same rational with respect to those claims, as shown above.
Consider claim 15, and as applied to claim 11 above, Douglas discloses a system comprising:
the goals are established by the client (page 9 line 32 – page 10 line 9, patients can define their own hopes and milestones that they plan to attain, which can be used to determine goals for the clients).
Claim 16 recites nearly the same claim limitations found in claim 8, and is rejected under the same rational with respect to that claim, as shown above.
Claims 17 – 20 recite nearly the same claim limitations found in claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 15, and are rejected under the same rational with respect to those claims, as shown above.
09. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (WO 99/03045), hereinafter “Douglas”, in view of Stenquist (US PGPub 2010/0048159), in further view of Chitiveli (US PGPub 2013/0179450), hereinafter “Chitiveli”.
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Douglas discloses a
method comprising:
the server is accessed through a [cloud] network, wherein the one or more monitoring devices includes biometric devices, and wherein a client management program is executed by communications devices utilized by the one or more clients to receive the data and track progress of the goals (page 24 lines 3 – 34, a server is accessed through a network, whereby the programs are utilized by different communications devices and hardware/software).
However, Douglas and Stenquist do not specifically disclose a cloud network.
In the same field of endeavor, Chitiveli discloses a method comprising:
the server is accessed through a cloud network (paragraphs [0031], [0032], a cloud network it utilized, which is used to access a server).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cloud network taught by Chitiveli into the patient monitoring system taught by Douglas and Stenquist to allow for a more complex and modern computing infrastructure to be used for the monitoring of patients and their conditions, which would also allow patients to access their health information on more modern devices/applications that could better assist them in their needs.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Christopher Raab whose telephone number is (571) 270-1090. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
/CHRISTOPHER J RAAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
March 20, 2026