DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 11/1/2025. Claims 2 and 11-20 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claim 1, and the respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to platform and method for health self-assessment.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. For example, independent claims 1 and 11, as a whole, are directed to personalized care management by, in part, obtaining and analyzing personalized health information, generating health scores and recommendations, and facilitating communication between users and healthcare providers for improved patient-centered care which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
A digital health self-assessment platform comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more smart retainer wearable devices equipped with oral-specific sensors and general physiological sensors, wherein the wearables are customizable and distributed to users based on their individual oral composition and the one or more wearable devices collect data points including a unique identifier (ID), pressure measurements, pressure area, mouth acidity levels, accelerometer data, GPS coordinates, temperature readings, device type and ID, and timestamps, wherein the oral-specific sensors comprise dental YLM sensors and oral YLM guards adapted to collect data on tooth positioning and teeth friction pressure;
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the platform to:
provide a user interface configured to receive user input and display personalized health information;
implement a data integration module configured to collect and store health data from a plurality of sources, including user input, medical devices, and electronic health records;
implement a computer vision module configured to analyze medical images and videos using object recognition, feature extraction, and image segmentation techniques to identify abnormalities and assist in diagnosis;
implement a natural language processing (NLP) module configured to interpret and extract insights from user input, medical records, and questionnaire responses;
implement an artificial intelligence (Al) engine comprising machine learning models trained on health data to generate personalized health insights, predict disease risks, and provide tailored recommendations; and
provide an application programming interface (API) configured to enable integration with third-party applications and services;
implement a dental Internet of Things (loT) module configured to collect data from dental loT devices comprising smart toothbrushes and oral hygiene monitors, wherein the platform establishes connectivity with dental loT devices using communication protocols and a data ingestion pipeline is developed to collect data from the connected dental loT devices;
wherein the instructions further cause the platform to:
identify trends and potential dental health issues by an AI engine and machine learning models are coupled to the dental IoT module to generate personalized recommendations for improving dental hygiene based on the analyzed data;
generate a personal health score based on the collected health data and Al-generated insights;
provide personalized alerts, notifications, and recommendations to users based on their health status and predicted risks; and
facilitate communication between users and healthcare providers for improved patient-centered care.
CLAIM 3:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, wherein the NLP module is further configured to analyze sentiment and emotion in user input to assess mental well-being and provide personalized recommendations for stress management and mental health support.
CLAIM 4:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, wherein the Al engine further comprises a predictive analytics module that utilizes machine learning algorithms to forecast potential health risks and enable early interventions based on user health data and trends.
CLAIM 5:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, wherein the user interface is further configured to present health insights and recommendations using interactive data visualizations, including charts, graphs, and infographics, to facilitate user understanding and engagement.
CLAIM 6:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, further comprising a secure messaging system that enables encrypted communication between users and healthcare providers, allowing for the exchange of health data, test results, and treatment plans.
CLAIM 7:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, further comprising a device management platform that utilizes token-based API requests for enhanced security and encryption, integrates advanced data ingestion and analysis for actionable insights, and provides augmented reality (AR) services for an immersive and interactive user experience, wherein the AR services are configured to superimpose virtual information onto the user's view of the real world.
CLAIM 8:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, further comprising a comprehensive data science platform that supports the development, deployment, and management of machine learning models, featuring ML model management, a recommendation system, detection analysis, and integration with Jupiter Notebook and JupiterLab, wherein the data science platform is configured to enable data scientists to collaboratively develop and deploy machine learning models.
CLAIM 9:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, further comprising a pooling system configured to aggregate outputs from multiple Al and ML models, including third-party tools and external databases, to provide more robust and reliable outcomes, wherein the pooling system comprises unique algorithms to process and extract insights from the aggregated outputs.
CLAIM 10:
The digital health self-assessment platform of claim 1, further comprising a blockchain-based platform for buying and selling devices and maintenance tickets, featuring a marketplace module, blockchain ledger, smart contracts, user authentication, and a user interface, wherein the blockchain ledger is configured to securely record transactions and the smart contracts are configured to automate the buying and selling process.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., one or more processors, memory, user interface, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “cause the platform to”, “computer-implemented”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0035], [0053], [0070], [0102] of applicant's specification (US App. Serial No. 18/773951) recites that the system/method is implemented using a smartphone or computer which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 11/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 11/1/2025.
4.1. Applicant argues, on pages 9-10 of the response, that the pending claims are patent-eligible because the claims elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provide an inventive concept for the following reasons: (1) the claims recite specific structures (i.e., sensors and guards, etc.) citing PowerBlock Holdings; (2) the claims improve the functioning of an electronic device analogous to the eligible claims in Enfish; (3) humans cannot perform the claimed data-processing steps mentally or manually because the invention’s crux is a specific computer algorithm, akin to the automated rules in McRO that were found to be a technological improvement; and (4) the claim limitations are novel over the prior art.
In regard to (1), it is noted that the claims in PowerBlock pertained to a weight selection and adjustment system for a selectorized dumbbell using electro-mechanical components to perform physical tasks or actions—the pending claims do not recite similar features and thus, PowerBlock is not analogous art. The Court decided that automating physical tasks or actions using tangible electro-mechanical components is different from automating mental processes with generic computing hardware. The former can potentially be patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the latter generally cannot. Here, the pending claims do not recite electro-mechanical components that perform physical tasks or actions; rather, the pending claims recite additional elements (e.g., smart retainer wearable device, dental Internet of Things (IoT), etc.) that perform extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering) to perform mental processes (i.e., analyzing data to generate recommendations, alerts, etc.).
In regard to (2), it is noted that the 101 patent-eligible claims of Enfish are directed to database software designed as a self-referential table that provide a specific improvement to the way computers operate, that is, computer functionality itself. Unlike Enfish, the pending claims do not pertain to database software designed as a self-referential table and thus, is not analogous art. Moreover, the recited additional elements in the pending claims do not provide a specific improvement to the way computers operated; rather, the recited additional elements are merely being used to automate certain manual tasks, such s, data gathering, data analysis, etc. using well-known computer technologies (i.e., sensors, AI engine, IoT module, etc.) recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. In other words, the focus of the pending claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
In regard to (3), it is noted that the 101 patent-eligible claims of McRO are directed to a technique of using set morph weights and transition parameters between phenomes that improve computer animation through the use of specific rules. Unlike McRo, the pending claims do not pertain to improving computer animation using morphing techniques and thus, is not analogous art. Furthermore, while the pending claims may recite limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, these are considered additional elements (i.e., smart retainer wearable devices to collect data points, etc.) that fall outside the abstract idea and are used for extra-solution activity and for automating the manual tasks recited in the claims, as set forth above. Aside from the additional elements, nothing recited in the claims precludes a person from performing the steps of the claim (i.e., collecting and storing data points; displaying information; analyzing medical images and videos; identifying abnormalities and assist in diagnosis; interpreting and extracting insights; generating personalized health insights, predicting disease, providing tailored recommendations; generating a personal health score; providing personalized alerts, notifications, and recommendations; and facilitating communication) in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, etc.) using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion.
In regard to (4), as made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, it is submitted that the pending claims recite and are directed to an abstract idea; the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself; and thus, the pending claims are not 101 patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681