DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to an application filed 17 May 2024, which is a continuation of a foreign application that claims priority to 19 July 2023.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 May 2024, 10 December 2024 and 1 October 2025 have been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings contain lines of insufficient weight, text of insufficient size and/or shading that make the drawings illegible, see Figs. 1-8. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-22 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-12 are drawn to a method of providing a health care service, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 13-15 are drawn to a server, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A method of providing a health care service, the method comprising:
collecting, by a health care device, biometric information associated with a user corresponding to the health care device, through at least one sensor;
identifying the user based on the biometric information and a user database stored in a server; and
performing, by the health care device, a personalized care operation corresponding to the identified user.
Claim 13 recites: A server comprising:
a communicator; and a controller configured to:
receive biometric information associated with a user who uses a health care device through the communicator,
identify the user based on the biometric information, and
transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to perform a personalized care operation corresponding to the identified user.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case identifying a user based on received information and performing a care operation based on the identification), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 include other limitations, for example claims 2-7, 14 and 15 recite further details on the identified user or the care operation and use of the biometric information and claims 8-12 recite customized modes, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 13.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1-15 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the server/communicator, the health care device and the sensor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs 56, 57 and 138 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language limiting the data to biometric information, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the particular devices recited in claims 10-12), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data recited in claims 2-12, 14 and 15), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 13, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the server/communicator, the health care device and the sensor), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 56, 57 and 138 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the server/communicator, the health care device and the sensor) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14 and 15 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 13, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the particular devices recited in claims 10-12), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data recited in claims 2-12, 14 and 15), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferrer Herrera et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2022/0392608 A1), hereinafter Ferrer.
As per claim 1, Ferrer discloses A method of providing a health care service, the method comprising (Ferrer, see Figs. 4 and 5.):
collecting, by a health care device, biometric information associated with a user corresponding to the health care device, through at least one sensor (Ferrer discloses the submission of biometric identity data to the PEMF therapy device, see paragraph 94 and Fig. 4 #406. Potential sensors include a fingerprint scanner, a camera, a voice/speech recognition device, a retina scanner and patient peripherals and a fitness tracking device, see paragraphs 62 and 97.);
identifying the user based on the biometric information and a user database … (Ferrer discloses wherein a biometric module of the PEMF therapy device identifies the user using a memory/database, see paragraphs 94 and 101, and Fig. 4 #406.); and
performing, by the health care device, a personalized care operation corresponding to the identified user (Ferrer, Fig. 4 #418.).
Ferrer fails to explicitly disclose identifying the user based on a user database stored in a server.
A secondary embodiment of Ferrer discloses use of a user database stored in a server (See Ferrer, Fig. 4 #410.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Ferrer directed to identifying a user with the secondary embodiment of Lu directed to use of a user database stored in a server because:
both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied;
the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving accessing and using patient related data; and
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter involving accessing and using patient related data and being disclosed in the same reference.
As per claim 13, Ferrer discloses A method of providing a health care service, the method comprising (Ferrer, see Figs. 4 and 5.):
A server comprising: a communicator; and a controller configured (Ferrer, see the treatment coordination server of Fig. 4 #s 410-412.) to:
receive biometric information associated with a user who uses a health care device through the communicator (Ferrer discloses the submission of biometric identity data to the PEMF therapy device, see paragraph 94 and Fig. 4 #406.);
identify the user based on the biometric information (Ferrer discloses wherein a biometric module of the PEMF therapy device identifies the user using a memory/database, see paragraphs 94 and 101, and Fig. 4 #406.), and
transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to perform a personalized care operation corresponding to the identified user (Ferrer discloses wherein the server transmits an encrypted treatment plan to the PEMF Therapy Device, which is used by the device to issue a command to deliver therapy, see Fig. 4 #s 412 and 418.).
Ferrer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the server processes biometric data to identify the user. However, as shown above, a secondary embodiment of Ferrer discloses wherein the PEMF therapy device processes biometric data to identify the user (Ferrer, Fig. 4 #406.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Ferrer directed to use of a server with the secondary embodiment of Lu directed to processes biometric data to identify the user because:
both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied;
the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving accessing and using patient related data; and
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter involving accessing and using patient related data and being disclosed in the same reference.
As per claims 2-5, 7-9, 14 and 15, Ferrer discloses claims 1 and 13, discussed above. Ferrer also discloses:
2. wherein the identifying the user comprises identifying the user by comparing the biometric information with registered biometric information stored in the user database (Ferrer, see paragraphs 94 and 101, and Fig. 4 #406.);
3. wherein the performing the personalized care operation comprises operating according to a mode that is preferred by the identified user from among a plurality of control modes of the health care device (Ferrer discloses wherein patient feedback data is collected after treatment, and then used to update future treatments, see paragraphs 97-99 and Figs. 4 #s 420-424, which would comprise operating according to a preferred patient mode.);
4. determining a change in a condition of the identified user by comparing a current value of the biometric information with a previous value of the biometric information, wherein the performing the personalized care operation comprises performing the personalized care operation based on the change in the condition of the identified user (Ferrer discloses wherein changes in collected patient data result in changes to the treatment, see paragraphs 52 and 99.);
5. wherein the biometric information comprises information about at least one of a height, a weight, a blood pressure, a heart rate, a heart rate variability, an oxygen saturation, a respiratory rate, a body temperature, fingerprints, an iris, a face, a vein, a voice, or a snoring sound (Ferrer discloses collecting face data, fingerprints, voice data and eye data, as well as pulse rate and temperature, see paragraphs and 17 and 62.);
7. wherein the performing the personalized care operation comprises displaying information about at least one of a recommended mode, a medical treatment, and a health care method to the identified user based on the change in the condition of the identified user (Ferrer discloses wherein changes in collected patient data result in changes to the treatment, see paragraphs 52 and 99. Ferrer also discloses displaying treatment information to the user, see paragraph 71.);
8. determining a customized mode for the health care device based on the change in the condition of the identified user, wherein the performing the personalized care operation comprises operating the health care device according to the customized mode (Ferrer discloses wherein changes in collected patient data result in changes to the treatment, see paragraphs 52 and 99, which would comprise a customized mode.);
9. wherein the customized mode comprises at least one mode from among a plurality of control modes of the health care device, or at least one modified mode having one or more changed mode variables from among the plurality of control modes (Ferrer discloses wherein changes in collected patient data result in changes to the treatment, see paragraphs 52 and 99, which would comprise a customized mode, as the patient data could change in a mass variety of ways, Ferrer discloses at least a plurality of possible modes.).
14. wherein the controller is further configured to transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to operate according to a mode that is preferred by the identified user from among a plurality of control modes of the health care device (Ferrer discloses delivering a control command, see paragraphs 95-97. Ferrer discloses wherein patient feedback data is collected after treatment, and then used to update future treatments, see paragraphs 97-99 and Figs. 4 #s 420-424, which would comprise operating according to a preferred patient mode.); and
15. wherein the controller is further configured to determine a change in a condition of the identified user by comparing a current value of the biometric information with a previous value of the biometric information, and transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to perform a personalized care operation corresponding to the change in the condition of the identified user (Ferrer discloses wherein changes in collected patient data result in changes to the treatment, see paragraphs 52 and 99. Ferrer discloses delivering a control command, see paragraphs 95-97.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferrer further in view of Dixit (U.S. Patent 12,539,078 B2), hereinafter Dixit.
As per claim 6, Ferrer discloses claim 4, discussed above. Ferrer fails to explicitly disclose averaging biometric values over time.
Dixit teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose averaging biometric values over time (Dixit, see C12L33-42.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of user identification for treatment provision of Ferrer to include averaging biometric values over time, as taught by Dixit, in order to implement user identification for treatment provision that uses more reliable biometric data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Ferrer and Dixit are directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to the provision of treatment services.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferrer further in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Patent 8,027,518 B2), hereinafter Baker.
As per claims 10 and 12, Ferrer discloses claim 8, discussed above. Ferrer fails to explicitly disclose use of a smart bed or smart workout equipment. Baker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
10. wherein based on the health care device comprising a smart bed, the customized mode comprises at least one … one modified mode from among the plurality of control modes in which one or more of a bed posture, a mattress hardness, a heat, a humidity and an illumination is changed (Baker discloses use of a smart bed that can adjust hardness, see C12L64-67.); and
12. wherein based on the health care device comprising smart workout equipment, the customized mode comprises at least one … modified mode from among the plurality of control modes in which one or more of a workout type and a workout intensity is changed (Baker discloses use of an adjustable workout device that can change the intensity, see C8L23-26.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of user identification for treatment provision of Ferrer to include use of a smart bed or smart workout equipment, as taught by Baker, in order to implement user identification for treatment provision across a plurality of devices. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Ferrer and Baker are directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to the provision of treatment services.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferrer further in view of Inada (U.S. PG-Pub 2018/0168914 A1), hereinafter Inada.
As per claim 11, Ferrer discloses claim 8, discussed above. Ferrer fails to explicitly disclose use of a smart massage device.
Inada teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein based on the health care device comprising a smart massage device, the customized mode comprises at least one … one modified mode from among the plurality of control modes in which one or more of a massage type, a massage portion, a massage intensity, a heating portion, and a heating intensity is changed (Inada, see various modes disclosed in Fig. 9.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of user identification for treatment provision of Ferrer to include use of a smart massage device, as taught by Inada, in order to implement user identification for treatment provision across a plurality of devices. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Ferrer and Inada are directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to the provision of treatment services.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Giap et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2015/0306340 A1), which discloses a system and method for a virtual reality medical application system.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
22 April 2026
Prosecution Insights