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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed on 09/30/2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are currently amended.
Claim 9 and 11 were previously cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter;
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient- specific value;
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for selecting a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for providing feedback to patient based on the stored feedback.
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for selecting a stored profile
The apparatus (claims 1-8 and 12) means for calculating a metric for the stored profile,
The apparatus (claims 2-4) means for selecting the stored profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback of the stored profile.
The apparatus (claims 5-7) means for obtaining a positivity value associated with the feedback provided to the patient; means for updating the profile for the patient based on the obtained positivity value; means for storing the updated profile for the patient in the storage medium.
The apparatus (claim 6) means for receiving an update of the patient-specific value of the at least one parameter and/or of a patient-specific value of at least one further parameter.
The apparatus (claim 7) means for obtaining input from the patient.
The apparatus (claim 8) means for repeatedly receiving updates of the at least one patient-specific value.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claim function, and equivalents thereof. The disclosure provides on page 4-5 that the apparatus may be implemented (e.g., embedded) in a server- or cloud-based system, e.g., comprising the storage medium (such as a database and/or a blockchain). The cloud-based system may be understood as a software-as-a-service (SaaS) and/or an infrastructure-as-a-service (laaS) implementation. Additionally, the apparatus is implemented e.g., in or as a mobile device, such as a smartphone, or another wearable adapted to be carried by the patient (e.g., a smart watch, a fitness tracker), or a sports device (e.g., a treadmill, an exercise bike, a rowing machine), a smart home device (e.g., a smart speaker), etc. Therefore, the claim limitations will be interpreted to be a software and computing device.
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 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 and 12 are drawn to a machine. Claims 13-15 are drawn to a process. As such, claims 1-8 and 12-15 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Independent Claim 1: An apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, the apparatus comprising:
a) means for receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter;
b) means for generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient- specific value;
c) means for selecting a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium, the selecting based on a comparison of the stored profile and the generated profile for the patient, wherein the stored profile comprises a stored feedback and a stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter; and
d) means for providing feedback to patient based on the stored feedback, wherein the means for selecting a stored profile comprises means for calculating a metric for the stored profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of the at least one parameter in the generated profile for the patient and the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in the stored profile, wherein the means for calculating is adapted to calculate a metric for a plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions, and the means for selecting is adapted to select a stored profile for which the metric is minimized, wherein the means for selecting the stored profile is adapted to select the stored profile, if the metric is below a threshold, wherein when no suitable stored profile can be determined in which the metric is below the threshold, an augmented patient- specific profile is generated comprising the generated profile for the patient and at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient.
Independent Claim 13: A method for optimizing a health state of a patient, the method comprising:
a) receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter;
b) generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient-specific value;
c) selecting a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium, the selecting based on a comparison of the stored profile and the generated profile for the patient, wherein the stored profile comprises a stored feedback and a stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter; and
d) providing feedback to the patient based on the stored feedback, wherein the selecting the stored profile comprises calculating a metric for the stored profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of the at least one parameter in the generated profile for the patient and the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in the stored profile, wherein the calculating is adapted to calculate a metric for a plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions, and the selecting is adapted to select a stored profile for which the metric is minimized, wherein the selecting the stored profile is adapted to select the stored profile, if the metric is below a threshold, wherein when no suitable stored profile can be determined in which the metric is below the threshold, an augmented patient-specific profile is generated comprising the generated profile for the patient and at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined are additional elements that fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Therefore, receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile are directed to managing personal interactions or personal behavior.
The dependent claims 2 and 14 are directed to selecting the profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback of the profile.
The dependent claim 3 is directed to providing the feedback, if the stored positivity value is negative, the feedback suggests to avoid an activity associated with the feedback.
The dependent claim 4 is directed to providing the feedback, if the stored positivity value is positive, the feedback suggests an activity associated with the feedback.
The dependent claim 5 is directed to obtaining a positivity value associated with the feedback, updating the profile based on the positivity value, and storing the updated profile.
The dependent claim 6 is directed obtaining the positivity value based on receiving an update of the patient-specific value of at least one parameter.
The dependent claim 7 is directed to obtaining the positivity value based on obtaining an input.
The dependent claim 8 is directed to receiving one or more values based on repeatedly receiving updates on at least one value.
The dependent claim 15 is directed implementing the steps of independent claim 13.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-15 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 13 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
As such, the Examiner concludes that the preceding claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 recite the use of a apparatus, in this case to optimizing a health state of a patient, receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter, generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient-specific value, providing feedback to patient based on the stored feedback, calculating a metric for the profile, generating an augmented patient-specific profile, only recites the apparatus as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 1 and 13 recite the use of a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium. The claim further recites a plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions. The stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium and plurality of the stored profiles are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 2 and 14 recite the use of a stored profile, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 5 recites the use of a storing the updated profile for the patient in the storage medium, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 12 recites the use of a store the updated profile for the patient in blockchain, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 15 recites the use of a computer program comprising instructions executed by a computer, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements, such as the apparatus, stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium, plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions, stored profile, storing the updated profile for the patient in the storage medium, store the updated profile for the patient in blockchain, computer program comprising instructions executed by a computer in independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-15 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements are directed to generic computer component and functions being used to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s own disclosure on page 4-6 acknowledges that the "apparatus may be implemented (e.g., embedded) in a server- or cloud-based system, e.g., comprising the storage medium (such as a database and/or a blockchain) ... apparatus is implemented e.g., in or as a mobile device, such as a smartphone, or another wearable adapted to be carried by the patient (e.g., a smart watch, a fitness tracker), or a sports device (e.g., a treadmill, an exercise bike, a rowing machine), a smart home device (e.g., a smart speaker), etc. .... the apparatus may be implemented by one or more processors in the medical device". The disclosure acknowledges on page 5-6 that the "apparatus may then be adapted to communicate with a server-based system which may comprise the storage medium in which the stored profiles are stored, e.g., using an interface...The apparatus/medical device may then be adapted to communicate with a server-based system which may comprise the storage medium in which the stored profiles are stored". Additionally, the disclosure on page 4 and 18-19 also acknowledges that the "the storage medium (such as a database and/or a blockchain ... A storage medium may be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer readable storage media can comprise RAM, ROM, EEPROM, FPGA, CD/DVD or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code means in the form of instructions or data structures and that can be accessed by a general-purpose or special-purpose computer, or a general-purpose or special-purpose processor.)".
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 12-15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US-20170000422-A1)[hereinafter Moturu], in view of Lesh et al. (US-20230010686-A1)[hereinafter Lesh].
As per Claim 1, Moturu discloses an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, the apparatus in paragraphs [0137-0140] and [0101] (a system for improving a patient's cardiovascular health state) comprising: a) means for receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter in paragraphs [0014] and [0016] (receiving a log of use dataset associated with patient digital communication behavior, wherein the digital communication behavior includes cardiovascular device data (Examiner note that receiving cardiovascular device data indicates receiving a patient-specific value of a parameter)); b) means for generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient- specific value in paragraphs [0064] (generating a patient profile based on the log of use dataset); c) means for selecting a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium, the selecting based on a comparison of the stored profile and the generated profile for the patient, wherein the stored profile comprises a stored feedback and a stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in paragraphs [0064] and [0069] and [0139-0140] (selecting a reference profile (synonymous to a stored profile) out of reference profiles of other patients in a computer-readable medium (synonymous to a storage medium), the selecting based on a comparison of the reference profile and the generated patient profile, wherein the reference profile includes therapeutic interventions (synonymous to stored feedback) and the cardiovascular health data (synonymous to the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter) in the reference profile); and d) means for providing feedback to patient based on the stored feedback in paragraphs [0069] and [0097] and [0101] and [0110] (providing recommended therapeutic interventions to the patient based on the therapeutic interventions in the reference profile), wherein the means for selecting a stored profile comprises means for calculating a metric for the stored profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of the at least one parameter in the generated profile for the patient and the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in the stored profile in paragraphs [0014] and [0050-0051] and [0064] (selecting a reference profile (synonymous to a stored profile) includes generating a cardiovascular health metric for the reference profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of a parameter in the generated patient profile and the cardiovascular health data (synonymous to the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter) in the reference profile), wherein the means for calculating is adapted to calculate a metric for a plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions in paragraphs [0014] and [0064-0065] and [0080-0087] (generating a cardiovascular health metric for a plurality of reference profiles but is limited to reference profiles that satisfy a condition), and the means for selecting is adapted to select a stored profile for which the metric is minimized, wherein the means for selecting the stored profile is adapted to select the stored profile, if the metric is below a threshold in paragraphs [0088] and [0092] and [0111] (selecting a reference profile, if the cardiovascular health metric satisfies a cardiovascular threshold condition (Examiner notes that the metric satisfying a threshold condition indicates the metric is below a threshold)).
Moturu does not disclose the following limitations. However, Lesh discloses wherein when no suitable stored profile can be determined in which the metric is below the threshold, an augmented patient- specific profile is generated comprising the generated profile for the patient and at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient in paragraphs [0025-0026] and [0032] and [0035] and [0041] and [0059] (when the stored authentic electronic medical records does not meet a threshold quantity, a realistic synthetic electronic health record is generated, referred to as augmented electronic health record (synonymous to an augmented patient specific profile) including the existing electronic health record (synonymous to the generated profile for the patient) and additional patient records (synonymous to at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient) (Examiner notes that patient records includes parameters associated with the health state of the patient)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient of Moturu with the generation of an augmented patient specific profile as taught by Lesh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient that generates an augmented patient specific profile.
As per Claim 8, Moturu and Lesh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, Moturu also discloses wherein the means for receiving the one or more patient-specific value comprises means for repeatedly receiving updates of the at least one patient-specific value in paragraphs [0014-0016] and [0028] and [0098] (receiving cardiovascular device data includes receiving continuous updates on the cardiovascular device data).
As per Claim 13, Moturu discloses a method for optimizing a health state of a patient in paragraphs [0016] and [0137-0140] and [0101] (a system for improving a patient's cardiovascular health state), the method comprising: a) receiving a patient-specific value of at least one parameter in paragraphs [0014] and [0016] (receiving a log of use dataset associated with patient digital communication behavior, wherein the digital communication behavior includes cardiovascular device data (Examiner note that receiving cardiovascular device data indicates receiving a patient-specific value of a parameter)); b) generating a profile for the patient based at least in part on the patient-specific value in paragraphs [0064] (generating a patient profile based on the log of use dataset); c) selecting a stored profile out of one or more stored profiles of the patient and/or of other patients in a storage medium, the selecting based on a comparison of the stored profile and the generated profile for the patient, wherein the stored profile comprises a stored feedback and a stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in paragraphs [0064] and [0069] and [0139-0140] (selecting a reference profile (synonymous to a stored profile) out of reference profiles of other patients in a computer-readable medium (synonymous to a storage medium), the selecting based on a comparison of the reference profile and the generated patient profile, wherein the reference profile includes therapeutic interventions (synonymous to stored feedback) and the cardiovascular health data (synonymous to the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter) in the reference profile); and d) providing feedback to the patient based on the stored feedback in paragraphs [0069] and [0097] and [0101] and [0110] (providing recommended therapeutic interventions to the patient based on the therapeutic interventions in the reference profile), wherein the selecting the stored profile comprises calculating a metric for the stored profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of the at least one parameter in the generated profile for the patient and the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter in the stored profile in paragraphs [0014] and [0050-0051] and [0064] (selecting a reference profile (synonymous to a stored profile) includes generating a cardiovascular health metric for the reference profile, wherein the metric is calculated between the value of a parameter in the generated patient profile and the cardiovascular health data (synonymous to the stored patient-specific value of the at least one parameter) in the reference profile), wherein the calculating is adapted to calculate a metric for a plurality of the stored profiles but is limited to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions in paragraphs [0014] and [0064-0065] and [0080-0087] (generating a cardiovascular health metric for a plurality of reference profiles but is limited to reference profiles that satisfy a condition), and the selecting is adapted to select a stored profile for which the metric is minimized, wherein the selecting the stored profile is adapted to select the stored profile, if the metric is below a threshold in paragraphs [0088] and [0092] and [0111] (selecting a reference profile, if the cardiovascular health metric satisfies a cardiovascular threshold condition (Examiner notes that the metric satisfying a threshold condition indicates the metric is below a threshold)).
Moturu does not disclose the following limitations. However, Lesh discloses wherein when no suitable stored profile can be determined in which the metric is below the threshold, an augmented patient-specific profile is generated comprising the generated profile for the patient and at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient in paragraphs [0025-0026] and [0032] and [0035] and [0041] and [0059] (when the stored authentic electronic medical records does not meet a threshold quantity, a realistic synthetic electronic health record is generated, referred to as augmented electronic health record (synonymous to an augmented patient specific profile) including the existing electronic health record (synonymous to the generated profile for the patient) and additional patient records (synonymous to at least one additional parameter associated with a health state of the patient) (Examiner notes that patient records includes parameters associated with the health state of the patient)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the method for optimizing a health state of a patient of Moturu with the generation of an augmented patient specific profile as taught by Lesh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably a method for optimizing a health state of a patient that generates an augmented patient specific profile.
As per Claim 15, Moturu and Lesh disclose the steps of any of claims 13. Moturu also discloses computer program comprising instructions which cause a computer to implement the steps of any of claims 13, when the instructions are executed in paragraph [0140] (computer-readable instructions executed by computer-executable components to perform the method).
Claims 2-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US-20170000422-A1)[hereinafter Moturu], in view of Lesh et al. (US-20230010686-A1)[hereinafter Lesh], in view of BETTENCOURT-SILVA et al. (US-20190392924-A1)[hereinafter Bettencourt-Silva].
As per Claim 2, Moturu and Lesh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Bettencourt-Silva discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises means for selecting the stored profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback of the stored profile in paragraphs [0004] and [0017] and [0070-0075] and [0083] (selecting the similar patient presentation profile (synonymous to the stored profile) based on usefulness score (synonymous to a stored positivity value) associated with historical feedback data (synonymous to the stored feedback) of the similar patient presentation profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with selecting the stored profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback, as disclosed by Bettencourt-Silva, for the purpose of efficiently and safely recognizing the impacts on a health state of person using a vast amount of available data [0003-0004].
As per Claim 3, Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva disclose the apparatus according to claim 2.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Bettencourt-Silva discloses wherein the means for providing the feedback is adapted such that, if the stored positivity value is negative, the feedback provided to the patient suggests to the patient to avoid an activity associated with the stored feedback in paragraphs [0068] and [0071] and [0075] (the usefulness evaluation component will assign a negative score to the medical action, wherein the medical action impacts the health state of an user based on the historical data and historical feedback, that is known to be ineffective or unsafe, wherein the usefulness evaluation component is associated with the historical feedback data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with the feedback, associated with a negative positivity value, that suggests the patient to avoid an activity, as disclosed by Bettencourt-Silva, for the purpose of efficiently and safely recognizing the impacts on a health state of person using a vast amount of available data [0003-0004].
As per Claim 4, Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva disclose the apparatus according to claim 2.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Bettencourt-Silva discloses wherein the means for providing the feedback is adapted such that, if the stored positivity value is positive, the feedback provided to the patient suggests an activity associated with the stored feedback in paragraph [0075] (the usefulness evaluation component will assign a positive, normalized score to the medical action if the outcome was successful to previous cases).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with the feedback, associated with a positive positivity value, that suggests the patient to perform an activity, as disclosed by Bettencourt-Silva, for the purpose of efficiently and safely recognizing the impacts on a health state of person using a vast amount of available data [0003-0004].
As per Claim 14, Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva disclose the method according to claim 13.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Bettencourt-Silva discloses further including selecting the stored profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback of the stored profile in paragraphs [0004] and [0017] and [0070-0075] and [0083] (selecting the similar patient presentation profile (synonymous to the stored profile) based on usefulness score (synonymous to a stored positivity value) associated with historical feedback data (synonymous to the stored feedback) of the similar patient presentation profile).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for a method for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with selecting the stored profile based on a stored positivity value associated with the stored feedback, as disclosed by Bettencourt-Silva, for the purpose of efficiently and safely recognizing the impacts on a health state of person using a vast amount of available data [0003-0004].
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US-20170000422-A1)[hereinafter Moturu], in view of Lesh et al. (US-20230010686-A1)[hereinafter Lesh], in view of BETTENCOURT-SILVA et al. (US-20190392924-A1)[hereinafter Bettencourt-Silva], in view of Knowlton (US-20030204415-A1)[hereinafter Knowlton].
As per Claim 5, Moturu and Lesh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Bettencourt-Silva discloses further comprising: means for obtaining a positivity value associated with the feedback provided to the patient in paragraphs [0083-0086] (obtaining a most positive impact score (synonymous to a positivity value) associated with the recommended medical action provided to the patient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with obtaining a positivity value associated with the feedback provided to the patient, as disclosed by Bettencourt-Silva, for the purpose of efficiently and safely recognizing the impacts on a health state of person using a vast amount of available data [0003-0004].
The combination of Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva discloses obtaining a positivity value but does not disclose updating the profile based on the obtained positivity value. However, Knowlton discloses means for updating the profile for the patient based on the obtained positivity value in paragraphs [0078] and [0080] and [0083-0084] (the patient profile is updated based on the success rate (referring to the positivity value)); means for storing the updated profile for the patient in the storage medium in paragraphs [0058] and [0080] and [0083-0084] (storing the updated patient profile in the database).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva, to be combined with updating the profile based on the positivity value and store the updated profile, as disclosed by Knowlton, for the purpose of selecting appropriate medication therapy for a patient [0006].
As per Claim 6, Moturu, Lesh, Bettencourt-Silva, and Knowlton disclose the apparatus according to claim 5.
Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva do not disclose the following limitations. However, Knowlton discloses wherein the means for obtaining the positivity value further comprises means for receiving an update of the patient-specific value of the at least one parameter and/or of a patient-specific value of at least one further parameter in paragraphs [0058] and [0067] and [0084] (obtaining the success rate includes receiving an update of the patient profile parameters).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva, to be combined with receiving an update of the patient-specific value of the parameter, as disclosed by Knowlton, for the purpose of selecting appropriate medication therapy for a patient [0006].
As per Claim 7, Moturu, Lesh, Bettencourt-Silva, and Knowlton disclose the apparatus according to claim 5.
Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva do not disclose the following limitations. However, Knowlton discloses wherein the means for obtaining the positivity value comprises means for obtaining input from the patient in paragraphs [0067] and [0084] (obtaining the success rate includes obtaining input from the patient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu, Lesh, and Bettencourt-Silva, to be combined with obtaining input from the patient, as disclosed by Knowlton, for the purpose of selecting appropriate medication therapy for a patient [0006].
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US-20170000422-A1)[hereinafter Moturu], in view of Lesh et al. (US-20230010686-A1)[hereinafter Lesh], in view of Knowlton (US-20030204415-A1)[hereinafter Knowlton].
As per Claim 12, Moturu and Lesh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Moturu and Lesh do not disclose the following limitations. However, Knowlton discloses wherein the apparatus is adapted to store the updated profile for the patient in a blockchain in paragraphs [0058] and [0080] and [0083-0084] (storing the updated patient profile in the database).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant's invention for an apparatus for optimizing a health state of a patient, as disclosed by Moturu and Lesh, to be combined with storing the updated profile in a blockchain, as disclosed by Knowlton, for the purpose of selecting appropriate medication therapy for a patient [0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 7-10, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, filed 09/30/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim limitations are directed to receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile. The limitations merely recite receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile, which are activities performed by medical staff, which falls into the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because it is the business relations of medical staff and patients. Additionally, the claim limitations involve managing personal behaviors or interactions between people.
Applicant argues that there are practical applications of the abstract idea due to technical improvements to the system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement to automated feedback technology. The claims merely recite receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile, which are a part of the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract ideas of receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."). The courts indicated in TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48, that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and providing the output is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim language and instant application fails to provide details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Here, the improvement is to receiving a value, generating a profile, selecting a profile, providing feedback, calculating a metric, and generating an augmented profile. There is no indication in the disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, “35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections”, filed 09/30/2025 with respect to claims 1-8 and 12-15 have been fully considered.
With regards to claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that the combination of Nolan and Moturu fail to disclose or suggest the limitations recited in the amended claims. Examiner finds this persuasive. Upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made over Moturu in view of Lesh. Applicant further argues that Moturu does not disclose limiting any calculations to stored profiles fulfilling certain predetermined conditions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Moturu discloses in paragraphs [0080-0087] the predetermined threshold conditions of the reference profiles that must be satisfied in order to generate the cardiovascular health metric for the reference profiles. As per the rejections of claims 2-8, 12, and 14-15, Applicant argues that the combination of Nolan, Moturu, Knowlton, Bettencourt-Silva, and Schmidt do not disclose or suggest the amended limitations. Examiner disagrees and points Applicant to the updated rejection and citations in the 103 rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Emir-Farinas (US 10335092 B1) teaches methods and systems for generating a future probabilistic medical profile of the patient.
Tsiouris KM “A Review of Virtual Coaching Systems in Healthcare: Closing the Loop With Real-Time Feedback” teaches on virtual coaching systems that are designed to enhance healthcare interventions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTEN N WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 - 5 pm, ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on (571)270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682