DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
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 the filed on 5/10/2024.
Claims 1-32 currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 8/16/2024 and 5/10/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (provisional application 63/263,969, filed 11/12/2021, provisional application 63/264,092, filed 11/15/2021, and provisional application 63/363,774, filed 04/28/2022) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]) that conventional techniques for users to manage medication usage have proven inadequate in preventing medication overuse. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through recording and reporting medication usage data using the steps of “providing input prompts, receiving medication usage data, determining trends of medication usage, displaying alerts, displaying warnings and instructions, displaying warnings of overuse,” etc. Applicant’s method is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 24 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “recording and reporting medication usage data,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0003]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-32 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method for performing the steps of “providing input prompts, receiving medication usage data, determining trends of medication usage, displaying alerts, displaying warnings and instructions, displaying warnings of overuse,” etc., that is “recording and reporting medication usage data,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-32 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. client device, server, computing device, processor, memory, speakers, sensors, displays, user-interface, communication interface (Applicant’s Specification [0046]-[0052]), etc.) to perform steps of “providing input prompts, receiving medication usage data, determining trends of medication usage, displaying alerts, displaying warnings and instructions, displaying warnings of overuse,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-32 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. client device, server, computing device, processor, memory, speakers, sensors, displays, user-interface, communication interface, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. client device, server, computing device, processor, memory, speakers, sensors, displays, user-interface, communication interface, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0046]-[0052], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “client device, server, computing device, processor, memory, speakers, sensors, displays, user-interface, communication interface,” etc. to perform the functions of “providing input prompts, receiving medication usage data, determining trends of medication usage, displaying alerts, displaying warnings and instructions, displaying warnings of overuse,” etc. The recited “client device, server, computing device, processor, memory, speakers, sensors, displays, user-interface, communication interface,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-32 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-14, 16-23 and 25-32 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-14, 16-23 and 25-32 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-14, 16-23 and 25-32 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 15 and 24.
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, 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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2023/0329630), in view of Sprintz (US 2015/0339456).
CLAIM 1
As per claim 1, Patel et al. disclose:
a method (Patel et al., [0030] method) comprising:
providing a plurality of input prompts via a graphical user interface on a client device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E, [0039] prompts);
receiving medication usage data via the plurality of input prompts at a server system associated with at least one of the client device and a clinician device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F 455 "You are still in sickness monitoring mode. Based on an analysis of your voice while talking with me over the last several days, you do not seem to be getting better. Have you been taking your antibiotic medication?", Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E);
determining a trend of medication usage data that indicates medication use known to cause a disease symptom onset (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C 5316 TREND: Getting Worse, Figure 5D, Figure 5E, [0032] symptoms, [0053] trending); and
based on the trend indicating medication use, displaying an alert of medication use risk via at least one of the graphical user interface on the client device and a clinician dashboard on the clinician device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A 3108 Dashboard, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C 5314 Risk of Transmission, Figure 5D, Figure 5E , [0054] issue an alert, ),
wherein displaying the alert of medication use risk via the graphical user interface comprises displaying a warning indication related to medication use and an instruction to seek medical advice, and wherein displaying the alert of medication use risk via the clinician dashboard comprises displaying the warning related to medication use and medication type being used (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A 3108 Dashboard, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C 5314 5315 RECOMMENDATION, Figure 5D, Figure 5E , [0164] providing an earlier warning).
Patel et al. fail to expressly disclose:
overuse.
However, Sprintz teach:
overuse (Sprintz, [0010] methods of, detecting potential controlled substance abuse, misuse, or diversion, [0061] method of predicting abuse or diversion of one or more controlled substances).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to include “overuse,” etc. as taught by Sprintz within the system as taught by the Patel et al. with the motivation of providing active monitoring and notification, current and real time data, and automated queries (Sprintz, [0010]).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising:
requesting clinician availability through the clinician dashboard in response to determining the trend of medication usage data indicating medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E);
scheduling a patient appointment (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E); and
displaying the patient appointment via the graphical user interface on the client device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising:
providing a scheduling prompt via the clinician dashboard (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E);
receiving a plurality of inputs comprising a scheduling request, at the server system (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E); and
displaying an instruction to schedule an appointment with a clinician via the graphical user interface of the client device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising receiving the medication usage data via the plurality of input prompts over a survey period, wherein the trend of medication usage data that indicates medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use known to cause disease symptom onset is determined over the survey period (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 4 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising displaying, via the clinician dashboard, types of medication in the medication usage data and length of time each medication type was taken in the survey period (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 6
As per claim 6, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 4 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein determining medication usage data that indicates a trend of medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use known to cause disease symptom onset (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) comprises:
receiving a usage of a medication over the survey period at the server system associated with the client device (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E); and
determining daily usage of the medication is over a threshold of recommended medication usage days over the survey period (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 7
As per claim 7, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 6 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the survey period comprises one month, and wherein the warning related to medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use further comprises a warning that the trend of medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use may indicate a risk of disease symptom onset within two months (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 6 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the survey period comprises two months, and wherein the warning related to medication overuse further comprises a warning that the trend of medication overuse may indicate a risk of disease symptom onset within one month (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 6 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the survey period comprises three months, and wherein the warning related to medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use further comprises a warning that the trend of medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use may indicate a risk of disease symptom onset (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 6 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising:
determining at least one missing day of medication usage from the daily usage over the survey period (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E); and
predicting daily usage for the at least one missing day of medication usage using a trained machine learning model (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E),
wherein determining the trend of medication usage data that indicates medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use known to cause disease symptom onset is further based on the predicted daily usage (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the medication usage data comprise days with intake of symptomatic headache medications, at least one medication type, medication dosage, medication administration route, and total number of medication doses taken in a day (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 12
As per claim 12, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 11 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein the medication type comprises at least one of prescribed medication and nonprescribed medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 13
As per claim 13, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 11 and further disclose the limitations of:
further comprising:
receiving, at the server system, from the clinician device via the clinician dashboard, a request to disregard the at least one medication type when determining the trend of medication usage data (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E); and
disregarding the at least one medication type while determining the trend of medication usage data (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
CLAIM 14
As per claim 14, Patel et al. and Sprintz
teach the system of claim 1 and further disclose the limitations of:
wherein displaying the alert of medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use risk via at least one of the graphical user interface on the client device and the clinician dashboard on the clinician device comprises displaying the alert of medication (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E) over (Sprintz, [0010], [0061]) use risk on a personal medical avatar (Patel et al., Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3A, Figure 3B, Figure 4A, Figure 4B, Figure 4C, Figure 4D, Figure 4E, Figure 4F, Figure 5A, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Sprintz with the system as taught by Patel et al. is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
CLAIMS 15-23
As per claims 15-23, claims 15-23 are directed to a system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus. Claims 15-23 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-4. Claims 15-23 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-4.
CLAIMS 24-32
As per claims 24-32, claims 24-32 are directed to a system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus. Claims 24-32 recite the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-4. Claims 24-32 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-4.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Mian et al. (US 2016/0378945) disclose methods and systems for determining whether particular actions affect or influence medical symptoms of patients. Datasets from a corresponding patients are received and stored in a database. Using the datasets stored in the database, a correlation between actions and disease symptoms may be determined based on a statistical analysis of the actions and symptoms stored in the database.
Hunt et al. (US 2025/0118429) disclose an integrated health management system, and method that includes a pre-packaged tablet delivery apparatus configured to deliver pre-packaged tablets to a user.
Alluhaidan et al. 2014 (Reference U) disclose a system that uses a wireless health devices and a mobile application to collect patient data. The system sends messages to patients to encourage self-care as per Fogg’s behavior model. On the clinician’s end, they designed a rule-based expert system and a dashboard to process and display patient vitals, symptoms, and health risk.
Brown et al. 2018 (Reference V) disclose a theory-informed system for primary care (the Performance Improvement plaN GeneratoR; PINGR) that covers the four principal interface components: clinical performance summaries; patient lists; detailed patient-level information; and suggested actions. This is the first report of an Electronic Audit and Feedback (e-A&F) system with all four interface components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. Coleman whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683