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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/3/2025. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-18 remain pending and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the extensive use of legal and claim language as well as undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant’s remarks regarding the objection to the disclosure and submitted amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that the enclosed amendment only deletes portions of the claim language making up the Abstract, and that the Abstract is still simply portions of the independent claim.
B. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that claim 1 now recites ““configuring graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan and displaying the graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan on the display; and adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback and displaying updated graphical elements for at least one of the plurality of steps” which integrate the alleged mental process into a practical application and are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner first notes that the claims are construed as reciting a method of organizing human activity rather than a mental process. Furthermore, the function of adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback falls within the scope of the abstract idea as set out below while the recited graphical elements and their display only amount to instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. Specifically, the graphical elements and display are merely being used as tools to perform the function of displaying the action plan to the user. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more. Applicant provides no further arguments supporting the above assertion.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
C. Applicant's statement with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 112(a) has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that no arguments are presented addressing the grounds of rejection or supporting the assertion that the amendment overcomes the rejection. Examiner maintains the rejection on the grounds set out below.
D. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited Paparo and Tanaka references do not teach or suggest “adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on user feedback and displaying updated graphical elements for at least one of the plurality of steps.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited below, Figure 4 elements 445 and 450, and paragraph 68 of Paparo show and describe the system re-evaluating and adjusting the previously established milestones of the action plan based on feedback about the user. Elements 425-440 of the flowchart in Figure 4 then show the system repeating the steps of determining program stages and milestones, developing the wellness plan, and providing tools for achieving the milestones following the determination that the user has not successfully completed the stage, i.e. adjusting the program stages and milestones, while Figure 2 and paragraph 47 again describe displaying the current program in the user interface.
Applicant does not provide additional specific arguments supporting the above assertion.
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are drawn to a method, while claims 10-18 are drawn to a computing device, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of
providing a user with an orientation assessment questionnaire configured to measure a plurality of independent orientation parameters, including perception orientation, conception orientation, and behavioral orientation;
providing the user with an obesity assessment questionnaire configured to measure health characteristics, including personal health history, current health, and awareness of personal health;
receiving user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire and the obesity assessment questionnaire;
for each of the independent orientation parameters, computing a corresponding orientation metric according to the user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire;
for each of a plurality of health characteristics, computing a corresponding health metric according to the user input in response to the obesity assessment questionnaire;
in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and the computed health metrics, determining a latent obesity type for the user and an obesity probability projection for the user;
in accordance with the determined latent obesity type and the obesity probability projection, generating an obesity mitigation action plan with a plurality of steps;
displaying the obesity mitigation action plan; and
adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback and displaying at least one of the plurality of steps.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and therefore fall within the scope of an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of assessing the likelihood that an individual will become obese based on the individual’s health information and personality, and further using that information to create an action plan to reduce that likelihood. This process is one which could be followed by an individual or their healthcare provider assessing their risk of obesity and making plans for avoiding obesity.
Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claims 1 and 10 further recite the additional elements of a) a computing device having a display used to display the action plan, a memory used to store executable programs, and one or more processors used to execute the programs and perform the subsequent data processing steps, and b) configuring and displaying graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan and displaying updated graphical elements.
Page 9 lines 2-9, page 11 paragraph 3, and page 36 paragraph 6 through page 37 paragraph 4 of the specification as originally filed describe a computing device in the form of a server or a user terminal, and which includes a processor, memory, and a user interface. The above paragraphs describe the user terminal as any of a smartphone, laptop, tablet, and other computing devices, as well as describing the processors as including a CPU, microprocessor, or other computing units and the memory as including any of hard disk drives, solid state disks, ROM, and RAM. Page 10 paragraphs 2-3 describe the user interface including a display such as a touchscreen. The computing device, one or more processors, memory, and display are each construed accordingly as encompassing generic computing elements.
Page 34 paragraph 10 – page 35 paragraph 5 describe various “graphic objects” displayed on the terminal corresponding to the action plan, and describe the interface in Figure 15 as an example. However, the graphic objects themselves are only described as items displayed on the interface. The graphical elements and their configuring and display are interpreted as encompassing the general display of the information on the graphic user interface.
The above elements only amount to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. For example, the one or more processors are only recited at a high level of generality as part of the computing device, with the subsequent data processing functions being “at” the computing device, while the display and graphical elements are likewise recited at a high level of generality as used to display the action plan.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 10 only recite the computing device, one or more processors, memory, and display, and the configuring and displaying of graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan and displaying updated graphical elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claims 2 and 11 recite wherein the health characteristics further includes current physical environment and current lifestyle of the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 3 and 12 recite in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and a first set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the current physical environment and current lifestyle of the user, determining one or more obesity inducing stress markers for the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 4 and 13 recite wherein generating the obesity mitigation action plan includes utilizing the determined obesity inducing stress markers for the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 5 and 14 recite in accordance with the determined obesity inducing stress markers and a second set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the personal health history and the awareness of personal health, determining an obesity incidence precursor projection for the user; and wherein the obesity probability projection for the user is further determined based on the determined obesity incidence precursor projection. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 6 and 15 recite wherein the determined obesity probability projection represents a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 7 and 16 recite wherein at least one of the plurality of steps includes receiving the user feedback in response to the action plan. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 8 and 17 recite wherein at least one of the plurality of steps includes providing exercise instructions for the user to follow. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 9 and 18 recite wherein the latent obesity type belongs to a category that represents a particular physical engagement level, a particular cognitive engagement level, and a particular behavioral engagement level derived from the computed orientation metrics. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1-18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). However, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed, and even original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. See Id.
Specifically with regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the specification must provide a disclosure of the computer and the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See Id.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of a) for each of a plurality of health characteristics, computing a corresponding health metric according to the user input in response to the obesity assessment questionnaire, b) determining a latent obesity type for the user in accordance with the computed health metrics, c) determining an obesity probability projection, d) generating an obesity mitigation action plan with a plurality of steps in accordance with the determined latent obesity type and the obesity probability projection, and e) adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback.
With respect to element (a) above, page 17 describes the health characteristics as “include[ing] at least one of the user's current or past i) physical environment (or physical residential environment) 910, ii) lifestyle 920, iii) physical condition 930, iv) personal health history 940, v) personal health awareness 950” as shown in Figure 9. Pages 18 and 19 describe questionnaire data matched to health characteristics, such as “physical movement/labor,” “communication with other via phone in-person,” and “being at the office,” and that the system “may calculate a health metric for the first health characteristic based on a user response to specific questionnaire data.” However, no disclosure of how the system calculates the metric is provided.
Similarly, while page 24 states that the processor may compute a health metric it does not provide any explanation of how a particular numerical health metric for a first health characteristic is determined. Stating that the processor uses “a predefined scoring algorithm” for the characteristic does not provide written description support for how a specific score is determined for a specific health characteristic based on the user input.
With respect to element (b) above, page 25 states that the processor “may determine a latent obesity type of the user based on at least some of the orientation metric and the health metric” and similarly that “the obesity type algorithm may classify the user as one of a plurality of obesity groups (A-la, A-lb, A-2a, A-2b, B-la, B-lb, B-2a, and B-2b) based on a combination of at least some of the orientation metric and the health metric.” No further disclosure is provided of how a latent obesity type is determined in accordance with a computed health metric.
With respect to element (c), page 30 states that the processor “may determine an obesity probability projection for the user based on the obesity incidence precursors” and that “the obesity probability projection determined by the obesity incidence precursor projection 1200 may represent the probability of obesity occurring within a predetermined time (e.g., unspecified future time point, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc.).” However, the disclosure does not describe how a probability of obesity occurring within any of the described predetermined times is actually calculated using obesity incidence precursors.
Pages 29 and 30 describe determining an obesity incidence precursor “according to the obesity inducing stress marker 1100 determined for the user and a second set of computed health metric corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health,” and page 30 states that for a projection of 2 years “it may mean projecting changes in weight and body composition of an individual over a period of two years, analyzing factors related to obesity, and performing projection in consideration of an individual's health condition, eating habits, exercise level, and the like.” No disclosure is provided of how any such projections are calculated, or how the calculation is performed using an obesity inducing stress marker and second set of computed health metrics.
Pages 27-29 describes that the processor “may compute a compatibility metric (or compatibility score) by comparing items compatible (corresponding or matching) between the orientation metrics 1000 and the first set of health metrics” and that it “may determine at least one health inducing stress marker 1100 based on the health metric matched to the orientation metrics 1000, the physical environment characteristic 910, and the lifestyle characteristic 920.” However, no further disclosure is provided of how any such stress markers are determined beyond a broad statement that they may be determined “based on” the health metric matched to the orientation metrics, physical environment characteristic, and lifestyle characteristic 920 and likewise only that the compatibility metric may be computed “by comparing” compatible items between orientation metrics and the first set of health metrics.
Critically, merely describing a precursor type of information, especially where that information is broadly categorical such as “compatible career,” and stating that the determination is “based on” or made “according to” is not sufficient to provide written description support for each of the respective determinations.
With respect to element (d), page 31 describes an obesity mitigation plan, providing that “an obesity mitigation action plan may refer to specific plans and goals set by individuals to alleviate obesity and maintain a healthy weight” and that “for example, it may be understood as setting a goal to obtain an effect for preventing or alleviating obesity, including an individual's diet, exercise, and lifestyle.” Page 31 further states that the processor “may generate a solution set 1300 for generating an obesity mitigation action plan (see FIG. 13)” which “may be generated based on the orientation metric 1000, the first set of health metrics (health metrics corresponding to physical environment characteristic 910 and lifestyle characteristic 920),” and that “the solution set 1300 may include a plurality of solution items corresponding to items matched between the orientation metrics 1000 and the first set of health metrics.” A “plurality of solutions” are described on pages 31 and 32, for example generating “a first solution item (e.g., "your career compatibility and job stress") corresponding to the first item (e.g., "compatible career") of the orientation metrics 1000 and the first item (e.g., "current profession") of the first set of health metrics” where “[i]n this case, the first solution item may mean "your career compatibility and job stress.” However, no disclosure is provided of how these are generated beyond “corresponding to” a corresponding orientation metric and health metric.
Page 33 then finally provides that the processor “may generate an obesity mitigation action plan consisting of a plurality of steps (or a plurality of procedures or a plurality of processes),” including that “a first procedure may relate to problem awareness, a second procedure may relate to problem recognition, a third procedure may relate to determination, a fourth procedure may relate to planning, and a fifth procedure may relate to execution & feedback Loop.” No further disclosure is provided of how any such action plan is actually determined. Examiner notes that merely providing descriptions of the intention of various stages, such as on pages 33 and 34, does not provide written description support for determination of an action plan.
No description is provided of how a latent obesity type is used as part of generating an obesity mitigation plan having a plurality of steps or of how an obesity probability projection is used as part of the generation.
Examiner again emphasizes that merely describing a category or one or more pieces of information and then stating that a determination is based “based on,” “using,” or made “according to” is not sufficient to provide written description support for the above steps.
With respect to element (e) above, page 34 states that “[i]n the execution and feedback step 1450, implementation and feasibility of the plan may be identified, adjustments may be made as necessary, and continuous improvement may be performed.” However, no further explanation of how at least one of the plurality of steps is adjusted based on feedback. Merely stating that feedback is received and that “adjustments may be made as necessary, and continuous improvement may be performed” is not sufficient to provide written description support for adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback, especially given that the step of generating the obesity mitigation action plan with a plurality of steps also lacks sufficient written description as addressed above with respect to element (d). Examiner notes that element 1450 in Figure 14 of the drawings, as referenced on page 34, does not include further descriptions that would provide written description support, and merely lists questions such as “What seems to be biggest challenge [sic] following your solutions?” and “Willing to share your progress data so we can improve your personal solution?”.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 10 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of determining one or more obesity inducing stress markers for the user in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and a first set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the current physical environment and current lifestyle of the user.
Pages 27-29 describes that the processor “may determine at least one health inducing stress marker 1100 based on the health metric matched to the orientation metrics 1000, the physical environment characteristic 910, and the lifestyle characteristic 920,” that it “may compute a compatibility metric (or compatibility score) by comparing items compatible (corresponding or matching) between the orientation metrics 1000 and the first set of health metrics” and that “the obesity inducing stress marker 1100 may include stress grades indicating excellent, good, fair, average, bad, concerning, problematic, and the like, based on the computed compatibility score.”
However, no further disclosure is provided of how any such stress markers are determined beyond the broad statements above that they may be determined “based on” the health metric matched to the orientation metrics, physical environment characteristic, and lifestyle characteristic 920. Likewise, no actual disclosure of how the system computes the compatibility metric beyond a high-level statement that it may be computed “by comparing” compatible items between orientation metrics and the first set of health metrics.
Merely stating that two pieces of information are compared and that something is computed as a result does not support the computation itself, especially given that no support is provided for computing numerical scores for the items being compared.
Claims 4-6 and 13-16 inherit the deficiencies of claims 3 and 12 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of generating the obesity mitigation action plan utilizing the determined obesity inducing stress markers for the user.
As cited above, page 33 provides that the processor “may generate an obesity mitigation action plan consisting of a plurality of steps (or a plurality of procedures or a plurality of processes),” including that “a first procedure may relate to problem awareness, a second procedure may relate to problem recognition, a third procedure may relate to determination, a fourth procedure may relate to planning, and a fifth procedure may relate to execution & feedback Loop.” No further disclosure is provided of how any such action plan is actually determined, and the only mention of obesity inducing stress markers is the statement that the processor “may utilize the obesity inducing stress markers 1100 determined for the user to generate an obesity mitigation action plan.”
Examiner notes that merely providing descriptions of the intention of various stages, such as on pages 33 and 34, does not provide written description support for determination of an action plan.
Examiner emphasizes that merely describing a category or one or more pieces of information and then stating that a determination is based “based on,” “using,” or made “according to” is not sufficient to provide written description support for the above steps
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 16 inherit the deficiencies of claims 4 and 13 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of a) determining an obesity incidence precursor projection for the user in accordance with the determined obesity inducing stress markers and a second set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the personal health history and the awareness of personal health, and b) determining the obesity probability projection for the user based on the determined obesity incidence precursor projection.
As cited above, page 30 states that the processor “may determine an obesity probability projection for the user based on the obesity incidence precursors” and that “the obesity probability projection determined by the obesity incidence precursor projection 1200 may represent the probability of obesity occurring within a predetermined time (e.g., unspecified future time point, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc.).” However, the disclosure does not describe how a probability of obesity occurring within any of the described predetermined times is actually calculated using obesity incidence precursors.
Pages 29 and 30 describe determining an obesity incidence precursor projection “according to the obesity inducing stress marker 1100 determined for the user and a second set of computed health metric corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health,” and page 30 states that for a projection of 2 years “it may mean projecting changes in weight and body composition of an individual over a period of two years, analyzing factors related to obesity, and performing projection in consideration of an individual's health condition, eating habits, exercise level, and the like.” No disclosure is provided of how any such projections are calculated, or how the calculation is performed using an obesity inducing stress marker and second set of computed health metrics.
With respect to claims 6 and 15, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of determining a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time.
As cited above, page 30 states that the processor “may determine an obesity probability projection for the user based on the obesity incidence precursors” and that “the obesity probability projection determined by the obesity incidence precursor projection 1200 may represent the probability of obesity occurring within a predetermined time (e.g., unspecified future time point, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc.).” However, the disclosure does not describe how a probability of obesity occurring within any of the described predetermined times is actually calculated using obesity incidence precursors.
Pages 29 and 30 describe determining an obesity incidence precursor projection “according to the obesity inducing stress marker 1100 determined for the user and a second set of computed health metric corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health,” and page 30 states that for a projection of 2 years “it may mean projecting changes in weight and body composition of an individual over a period of two years, analyzing factors related to obesity, and performing projection in consideration of an individual's health condition, eating habits, exercise level, and the like.” No disclosure is provided of how any such projections are calculated, or how the calculation is performed using an obesity inducing stress marker and second set of computed health metrics.
With respect to claims 8 and 17, the specification does not provide sufficient written description of the claimed subject matter to show that applicant had possession of a method or system capable of determining exercise instructions for the user to follow as part of the obesity mitigation plan.
Page 34 states that the processor “may provide exercise instructions for the user to follow through planning step 1440 of the plurality of steps,” and that “exercise instructions may be provided customized according to the user's individual degree of obesity (severe obesity,
overweight, general obesity, and reduced muscle mass obesity). However, no further disclosure is provided of how exercise instructions for the user to follow are actually determined. Merely stating that exercise instructions may be provided as part of the obesity mitigation plan is not sufficient to provide written description support for how those exercise instructions are determined for the plan and provided.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paparo (US Patent Application Publication 2005/0228691) in view of Tanaka et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0321129).
With respect to claim 1, Paparo discloses the claimed method for identifying latent obesity, comprising:
at a computing device having a display, one or more processors, and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors (Figures 2 and 3, [14], [37], [38], [40]-[42], and [55]-[56] describe computing devices having graphical interfaces executing stored applications):
providing a user with an orientation assessment questionnaire configured to measure a plurality of independent orientation parameters, including perception orientation, conception orientation, and behavioral orientation ([11], [13], [62], and claim 6 describe a user entering answers to a plurality of questions related to parameters for personality traits, behaviors and behavioral patterns, habits, feelings, self-esteem, which are construed as encompassing descriptions of perception orientation, conception orientation, and behavioral orientation. Examiner notes that “perception orientation,” “conception orientation,” and “behavioral orientation” are non-functional descriptors which are not defined, and are accordingly given their broadest reasonable interpretation);
providing the user with an obesity assessment questionnaire configured to measure health characteristics, including personal health history, current health, and awareness of personal health ([11], [13], [62], and claim 6 describe a user entering answers to a plurality of questions related to parameters for present and past physical data, medical history, and goals, i.e. awareness of personal health);
receiving user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire and the obesity assessment questionnaire ([13], [62], and claims 6 and 9 describe a user entering answers to the questions);
for each of the independent orientation parameters, computing a corresponding orientation metric according to the user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire ([62] describes the parameters for personality traits, behaviors and behavioral patterns, habits, feelings, self-esteem, while [12], [13], [49], and Claim 1 describe assigning weights and values for metrics);
for each of a plurality of health characteristics, computing a corresponding health metric according to the user input in response to the obesity assessment questionnaire ([62] describes the parameters for present and past physical data, medical history, and goals, while [12], [13], [49], and Claim 1 describe assigning weights and values for metrics);
in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and the computed health metrics, determining a latent obesity type for the user ([22] and [26] describe assembling the particular metric values associated with the user as well as comparing those metrics to ranges for determining conditions, where the combination of metrics of the user is construed as a latent obesity type for the user. Examiner notes Figures 8A-8B and page 27 of Applicant’s disclosure describing “obesity types” as being different combinations of values for the orientation parameters);
in accordance with the determined latent obesity type, generating an obesity mitigation action plan with a plurality of steps (Figure 4, [13], [22]-[27], and [61]-[63] describe using the combination of metrics to construct a weight management wellness plan having multiple stages);
configuring graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan and displaying the graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan on the display (Claim 1, [23], [42], [47], and [49] describe providing the program via a graphical user interface, while Figure 2 provides an example interface having graphical elements used to display the program); and
adjusting at least one of the plurality of steps based on feedback and displaying updated graphical elements for at least one of the plurality of steps (Figure 4 elements 445 and 450, and [68] describe the system re-evaluating and adjusting the previously established milestones in the action plan based on the feedback; Figure 4 elements 425-440 show the system repeating the steps of determining program stages and milestones, developing the wellness plan, and providing tools for achieving the milestones following the determination that the user has not successfully completed the stage, i.e. adjusting the program stages and milestones; Figure 2 and [47] describe displaying the current program in the user interface);
but does not expressly disclose:
determining an obesity probability projection for the user in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and the computed health metrics; and
generating the obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection.
However, Tanaka teaches that it was old and well known in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an obesity probability projection for a user in accordance with computed orientation metrics and computed health metrics (Figure 6, [37], [65], [66], and [78]-[79] describe using a plurality of determined lifestyle metrics to determine a risk of the user suffering from a disease, including obesity, in the future; [42]-[50] describe the factors used, which includes orientation and health metrics), and generate an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection ([93]-[95] and [122] describe generating advice for how the user can change their lifestyle based on the user’s lifestyle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paparo to determine an obesity probability projection for a user in accordance with computed orientation metrics and computed health metrics and generate an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection as taught by Tanaka since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Paparo already discloses determining computed orientation metrics and health metrics as well as generating an obesity mitigation plan, and determining an obesity probability projection for the user in accordance with the orientation and health metrics and an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection as taught by Tanaka would perform those same functions in Paparo, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 2, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 1. Paparo further discloses:
wherein the health characteristics further includes current physical environment and current lifestyle of the user ([62] describes the metrics as including relationships, behaviors and behavioral patterns, and habits. Examiner notes Figure 11 of Applicant’s disclosure listing relationship environment as an “environment” characteristic).
With respect to claim 3, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 2. Paparo further discloses:
in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and a first set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the current physical environment and current lifestyle of the user, determining one or more obesity inducing stress markers for the user ([62] describes the metrics as including relationships, behaviors and behavioral patterns, and habits; [13], and [22]-[26] describe using the metrics to generate a plan, including identifying hurdles that have habitually resulted in weight gain, i.e. obesity inducing stress markers).
With respect to claim 4, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 3. Paparo further discloses:
wherein generating the obesity mitigation action plan includes utilizing the determined obesity inducing stress markers for the user (Figure 2, [13], and [22]-[26] describe generation of the plan as including milestones and tasks for the user to overcome the identified hurdles, i.e. utilizing the obesity inducing stress markers).
With respect to claim 5, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 4. Paparo does not expressly disclose: in accordance with the determined obesity inducing stress markers and a second set of the computed health metrics corresponding to the personal health history and the awareness of personal health, determining an obesity incidence precursor projection for the user; wherein the obesity probability projection for the user is further determined based on the determined obesity incidence precursor projection.
However, Tanaka teaches that it was old and well known in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an obesity incidence precursor projection for a user in accordance with obesity inducing stress markers and computed health metrics corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health (Figure 6, [37], [61], [65], [66], and [78]-[79] describe using a plurality of determined lifestyle metrics to determine disease risk projections, including obesity projections, for different time periods in the future, i.e. performing an obesity incidence precursor projection at each time period, where an obesity incidence precursor projection is construed as an analysis performed for each time period; [42]-[50] describe the factors used, which includes factors related to past health behavior of the user, awareness, and stress markers for obesity), and to determine an obesity probability projection for the user based on the determined obesity incidence precursor projection (Figure 6, [37], [65], [66], and [78]-[79] describe determining a risk of the user suffering from a disease, including obesity, at each of a set number of years in the future ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Paparo and Tanaka to determine an obesity incidence precursor projection for a user in accordance with obesity inducing stress markers and computed health metrics corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health, and to determine an obesity probability projection for the user based on the determined obesity incidence precursor projection as taught by Tanaka since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Paparo and Tanaka already teaches generating an obesity probability projection, and determining an obesity probability projection based on an obesity incidence precursor projection determined in accordance with obesity inducing stress markers and computed health metrics corresponding to personal health history and awareness of personal health as taught by Tanaka would perform those same functions in Paparo and Tanaka, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 6, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 4. Paparo does not expressly disclose wherein the determined obesity probability projection represents a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time.
However, Tanaka teaches that it was old and well known in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an obesity probability projection representing a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time (Figure 6, [37], [65], [66], and [78]-[79] describe determining a risk of the user suffering from a disease, including obesity, at a set number of years in the future).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Paparo and Tanaka to determine an obesity probability projection representing a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time as taught by Tanaka since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Paparo and Tanaka already teaches generating an obesity probability projection, and determining an obesity probability projection representing a probability of whether obesity will occur within a predetermined span of time as taught by Tanaka would perform that same function in Paparo and Tanaka, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 7, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 1. Paparo further discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of steps includes receiving the user feedback in response to the action plan (Figure 4 element 445, [32], [33], [68], and Claim 3 describe receiving feedback from the user based on the action plan requirements).
With respect to claim 8, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 1. Paparo further discloses:
wherein at least one of the plurality of steps includes providing exercise instructions for the user to follow ([11], [34], and claim 20 describe the program as including personalized exercise programs for the user).
With respect to claim 9, Paparo/Tanaka teach the method of claim 1. Paparo further discloses:
wherein the latent obesity type belongs to a category that represents a particular physical engagement level, a particular cognitive engagement level, and a particular behavioral engagement level derived from the computed orientation metrics ([12], [13], [22], [26], [49], and claim 1 describe assigning values to the metrics and assembling the particular metric values associated with the user, where the combination of metrics values of the user is construed as a latent obesity type for the user; [62] describes the metrics as including metrics for physical, cognitive, and behavioral levels such as physical data, behaviors, feelings, self-esteem, and aspirations. Examiner notes Figures 8A-8B and page 27 of Applicant’s disclosure describing “obesity types” as being different combinations of values for the orientation parameters such as numerical values for different parameters. Examiner further notes that the claim does not define a “category” or how the category “represents” the engagement levels beyond being a grouping of particular metric values).
With respect to claim 10, Paparo discloses the claimed computing device, comprising:
one or more processors, memory, one or more programs stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors (Figures 2 and 3, [14], [37], [38], [40]-[42], and [55]-[56] describe computing devices having graphical interfaces executing stored applications), the one or more programs including instructions for:
providing a user with an orientation assessment questionnaire configured to measure a plurality of independent orientation parameters, including perception orientation, conception orientation, and behavioral orientation ([11], [13], [62], and claim 6 describe a user entering answers to a plurality of questions related to parameters for personality traits, behaviors and behavioral patterns, habits, feelings, self-esteem, which are construed as encompassing descriptions of perception orientation, conception orientation, and behavioral orientation. Examiner notes that “perception orientation,” “conception orientation,” and “behavioral orientation” are non-functional descriptors which are not defined, and are accordingly given their broadest reasonable interpretation);
providing the user with an obesity assessment questionnaire configured to measure health characteristics, including personal health history, current health, and awareness of personal health ([11], [13], [62], and claim 6 describe a user entering answers to a plurality of questions related to parameters for present and past physical data, medical history, and goals, i.e. awareness of personal health);
receiving user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire and the obesity assessment questionnaire ([13], [62], and claims 6 and 9 describe a user entering answers to the questions);
for each of the independent orientation parameters, computing a corresponding orientation metric according to the user input in response to the orientation assessment questionnaire ([62] describes the parameters for personality traits, behaviors and behavioral patterns, habits, feelings, self-esteem, while [12], [13], [49], and Claim 1 describe assigning weights and values for metrics);
for each of a plurality of health characteristics, computing a corresponding health metric according to the user input in response to the obesity assessment questionnaire ([62] describes the parameters for present and past physical data, medical history, and goals, while [12], [13], [49], and Claim 1 describe assigning weights and values for metrics);
in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and the computed health metrics, determining a latent obesity type for the user ([22] and [26] describe assembling the particular metric values associated with the user as well as comparing those metrics to ranges for determining conditions, where the combination of metrics of the user is construed as a latent obesity type for the user. Examiner notes Figures 8A-8B and page 27 of Applicant’s disclosure describing “obesity types” as being different combinations of values for the orientation parameters);
in accordance with the determined latent obesity type, generating an obesity mitigation action plan with a plurality of steps (Figure 4, [13], [22]-[27], and [61]-[63] describe using the combination of metrics to construct a weight management wellness plan having multiple stages);
a display configured to generate graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan display the graphical elements representing the obesity mitigation action plan on the display (Claim 1, [23], [42], [47], and [49] describe providing the program via a graphical user interface, while Figure 2 provides an example interface having graphical elements used to display the program), wherein the processor is further configured to adjust at least one of the plurality of steps based on user feedback and the display is configured to display updated graphical elements for at least one of the plurality of steps (Figure 4 elements 445 and 450, and [68] describe the system re-evaluating and adjusting the previously established milestones in the action plan based on the feedback; Figure 4 elements 425-440 show the system repeating the steps of determining program stages and milestones, developing the wellness plan, and providing tools for achieving the milestones following the determination that the user has not successfully completed the stage, i.e. adjusting the program stages and milestones; Figure 2 and [47] describe displaying the current program in the user interface);
but does not expressly disclose:
determining an obesity probability projection for the user in accordance with the computed orientation metrics and the computed health metrics; and
generating the obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection.
However, Tanaka teaches that it was old and well known in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an obesity probability projection for a user in accordance with computed orientation metrics and computed health metrics (Figure 6, [37], [65], [66], and [78]-[79] describe using a plurality of determined lifestyle metrics to determine a risk of the user suffering from a disease, including obesity, in the future; [42]-[50] describe the factors used, which includes orientation and health metrics), and generate an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection ([93]-[95] and [122] describe generating advice for how the user can change their lifestyle based on the user’s lifestyle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of health prediction before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Paparo to determine an obesity probability projection for a user in accordance with computed orientation metrics and computed health metrics and generate an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection as taught by Tanaka since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Paparo already discloses determining computed orientation metrics and health metrics as well as generating an obesity mitigation plan, and determining an obesity probability projection for the user in accordance with the orientation and health metrics and an obesity mitigation plan in accordance with the obesity probability projection as taught by Tanaka would perform those same functions in Paparo, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 2, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 3, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 4, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 5, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 5.
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 6, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 7, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 7.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 8, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 9, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0250470);
Yoo et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0242556);
Acosta et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0306033);
Runyon et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0294053);
Brier (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0204412);
Kang et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0245928); and
Suzuki et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0076837).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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 at (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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682