DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the communication filed on July 16, 2024. This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “in response to the determination of the particular reward, activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward; and send a notification to the user indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user, the notification including the summary of earned rewards” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,040,086 (hereinafter ‘086). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Patent ‘086
A system comprising:
a wearable monitoring device of a user configured to be continuously worn by the user and to capture first patient data of the user, the first patient data comprising data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic healthcare kiosk and data that is captured by the wearable monitoring device that is worn by the user and is in wireless communication with the electronic healthcare kiosk;
a patient portal comprising:
a data retrieval engine configured to receive, from the electronic healthcare kiosk over a network, the first patient data of the user;
a data transmission engine configured to transmit second patient data of the user from a health care system to the electronic healthcare kiosk over the network as the user interacts with the patient portal, thereby enabling the electronic healthcare kiosk to present the second patient data to the user;
a user activity monitoring engine configured to capture interaction data of the user; and
an interface configured to indicate rewards provided to the user and enable redemption of the rewards by the user;
an interaction based gamification system comprising:
a data receipt engine configured to obtain the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data of the user from the patient portal;
a reward rules management engine configured to generate one or more reward rules specified by the healthcare provider of the user, the one or more reward rules being different from the rewards, the one or more reward rules being specific to the user based on a health condition of the user and being associated with a task to complete or a goal to attain; and
a reward determination engine configured to:
determine if the user has completed the task or attained the goal;
if the user has completed the task or attained the goal, determine a particular reward by applying the one or more reward rules to the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data;
in response to the determination of the particular reward, activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward; and
send a notification to the user indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user, the notification including the summary of earned rewards.
1. A system comprising:
An electronic healthcare kiosk, wherein the electronic healthcare kiosk is positioned at a location of a healthcare provider;
a wearable monitoring device of a user configured to be continuously worn by the user and to capture first patient data of the user, the first patient data comprising data that is inputted by the user via an application on the electronic healthcare kiosk and data that is captured by the wearable monitoring device that is worn by the user and is in wireless communication with the electronic healthcare kiosk, the first patient data including heart monitor readings and a distance the user has walked or run in a period of time, the wearable monitoring device being distinct from the electronic healthcare kiosk
a patient portal comprising:
a data retrieval engine configured to receive, from the electronic healthcare kiosk over a network, the first patient data of the user;
a data transmission engine configured to transmit second patient data of the user from a health care system to the electronic healthcare kiosk over the network as the user interacts with the patient portal, thereby enabling the
electronic healthcare kiosk to present the second patient data to the user, the second patient data comprising health records, lab results including lab results for a blood sugar level of the user, test results, vital statistics, procedure information, and medication information;
a user activity monitoring engine configured to capture interaction data of the user, the interaction data indicating at least one user interaction with the health care system using the patient portal, the at least one user interaction with the health care system using the patient portal including the user viewing the lab results for the blood sugar level of the user;
and
an interface configured to indicate rewards provided to the user and enable redemption of the rewards by the user, wherein the interface is further configured to present, based on the second patient data of the user, a plurality of activities marked by a respective graphical ribbon indicating an eligibility for at least one reward, wherein activation of a particular respective graphical ribbon reveals on the interface a respective reward value associated with a particular activity of the plurality of activities presented on the interface, wherein the plurality of activities presented on the interface include health record activities associated with the health records of the second patient data, lab result activities associated with the lab results of the second patient data, test result activities associated with the test results of the second patient data, vital statistics activities associated with the vital statistics of the second patient data, procedure information activities associated with the procedure information of the second patient data, and medication information activities associated with the medication information of the second patient data; and
an interaction based gamification system comprising:
a data receipt engine configured to obtain the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data of the user from the patient portal;
a reward rules management engine configured to generate one or more reward rules specified by the healthcare provider of the user, the one or more reward rules being different from the rewards, the one or more reward rules being specific to the user based on a health condition of the user and being associated with a task to complete or a goal to attain of lowering the blood sugar level of the user, a reward type, and a reward amount, wherein the one or more reward rules are specified by the healthcare provider of the user in order to lower the blood sugar level of the user based on the health condition of the user; and
a reward determination engine configured to:
determine if the user has completed the task or attained the goal of lowering the blood sugar level of the user by comparing the lab results for the blood sugar level of the user to previous lab results for the blood sugar level of the user;
if the user has completed the task or attained the goal of lowering the blood sugar level of the user, determine a particular reward by applying the one or more reward rules to the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data;
provide, in response to a determination of the particular reward, the particular reward to the user through the patient portal;
provide a summary of earned rewards to the user, the summary indicating a first portion of the earned rewards that are associated with the first patient data, a second portion of the earned rewards that are associated with viewing of a first portion of the second patient data by the user, a third portion of the earned rewards that are associated with viewing of a second portion of the second patient data by the user, and a fourth portion of the earned rewards that are associated with the interaction data, wherein the summary of earned rewards includes a summary of the particular reward and a plurality of other rewards;
in response to the determination of the particular reward, activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward; and
send a notification to the user indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user, the notification including the summary of earned rewards.
Dependent claims 2-8 of the instant application and claim 2-8 of the ‘086 patent are identical and an explicit mapping is not provided.
As can be seen from the table above, claim 1 of ‘086 contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and anticipates the presently claimed invention. The species claimed in the issued ‘086 patent anticipates the claimed genus in the present claims being examined and, therefore, a patent to the genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of the species should the genus issue as a patent and a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is warranted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data retrieval engine”, “data transmission engine”, “user activity monitoring engine”, “data receipt engine”, “reward rules management engine”, “reward determination engine” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, “one or more processors” as stated in [0025] is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to independent claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite, among other things, “a wearable monitoring device of a user configured to be continuously worn by the user to capture first patient data of the user, the first patient data comprising data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic healthcare kiosk and data that is captured by the wearable monitoring device” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear how the first patient data is both captured by the wearable monitoring device and comprises data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic kiosk. It is further unclear as to whether the data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic kiosk is the same or distinct from data that is captured by the wearable device. Furthermore, it is unclear if the data captured by the wearable monitoring device is separate and distinct from the first patient data that he wearable monitoring device is configured to capture. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted in a manner as best understood by the examiner to mean the wearable monitoring devices captures monitored data, wherein the claims further recite the transmission/reception of first patient data, which includes the monitored data and inputted data via an application on an electronic kiosk. Appropriate correction is required.
As to dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, the claims fail to resolve the 112 deficiency of their parent claims and are similarly rejected.
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 1-20 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 1-8 recite a system of monitoring patient task/goal completion, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 9-16 recite a method of monitoring patient task/goal completion, which is within the statutory category of a process. Claims 17-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable memory performing instructions for monitoring patient task/goal completion, which is within the statutory category of a process, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture.
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The bolded limitations of:
Claims 1, 9, and 17 (claim 9 being representative)
A method being implemented by a computing system including one or more physical processors and storage media storing machine-readable instructions, the method comprising: capturing, by a wearable monitoring device of a user configured to be continuously worn by the user, first patient data of the user, the first patient data comprising data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic healthcare kiosk and data that is captured by the wearable monitoring device that is worn by the user and is in wireless communication with the electronic healthcare kiosk; receiving, at a patient portal from the electronic healthcare kiosk over a network, the first patient data of the user; transmitting, by a data transmission engine configured, second patient data of the user from a health care system to the electronic healthcare kiosk over the network as the user interacts with the patient portal, thereby enabling the electronic healthcare kiosk to present the second patient data to the user; capturing, by a user activity monitoring engine, interaction data of the user; and indicating, through an interface, rewards provided to the user and enable redemption of the rewards by the user; obtaining, by a data receipt engine, the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data of the user from the patient portal; generating, by a reward rules management engine, one or more reward rules specified by the healthcare provider of the user, the one or more reward rules being different from the rewards, the one or more reward rules being specific to the user based on a health condition of the user and being associated with a task to complete or a goal to attain; and determining, by a reward determination engine, if the user has completed the task or attained the goal; if the user has completed the task or attained the goal, determining a particular reward by applying the one or more reward rules to the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data; in response to the determination of the particular reward, activating a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward; and sending a notification to the user indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user, the notification including the summary of earned rewards.
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person monitoring patient progress towards a goal/task and providing rules to receive an award when appropriate in the manner described in the abstract idea. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a computing system”, "one or more physical processors”, “storage media storing machine-readable instructions”, “wireless communication”, “a network”, and the various “engines” (see [0025] describing the engines as one or more processors)—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The “electronic healthcare kiosk”, “wearable device”, “application” and “portal” are not a generic computer component; however it is recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Alternatively, the “application” and “portal” represents mere data gathering (obtaining the patient-specific information) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the obtained information is used in the abstract method of organizing human activity of monitoring patient task/goal completion. The application and portal are recited at a high level of generality. The application and portal are therefore insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g) indicating mere data gathering and/or mere data output are insignificant extra solution activities of insignificant computer implementation).
The “activating a link” is not a generic computer component. However, a review of the specification shows “activating” as being analogous to providing/making available content and/or selecting an object (e.g., see [0072], [0073] of Applicant’s specification). Notably, disclosure of any “link” is not described in Applicant’s originally filed specification. Insomuch as “activating” is interpreted as providing/making available and/or selecting, the additional element is subsumed in the identified abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. 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. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a computing system”, "one or more physical processors”, “storage media storing machine-readable instructions”, “wireless communication”, “a network”, and the various “engines” (see [0025] describing the engines as one or more processors)—See Specification Fig. 1, [0017]-[0023], [0025], [0029] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional elements of the “electronic healthcare kiosk”, “wearable device”, “application” and “portal” were recited at a high levels of generality and similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. This additional element have been re-evaluated under step 2B and have also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(A) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more). (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicating generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Additionally, the “application” and “portal” for receiving patient-specific information, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "electronic recordkeeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory).
Similarly, the “activating a link” is not a generic computer component. However, a review of the specification shows “activating” as being analogous to providing/making available content and/or selecting an object (e.g., see [0072], [0073] of Applicant’s specification). Notably, disclosure of any “link” is not described in Applicant’s originally filed specification. Insomuch as “activating” is interpreted as providing/making available and/or selecting, the additional element is subsumed in the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2-4 (10-12, 18-20) merely wherein the user actions can include access specific patient data, update specific patient data, or perform a communication. Claims 5-7 (13-15) merely recite providing particular rewards/values/amounts based on the patient data, and claims 8 (16) merely recite updating the rewards based on input, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vigneux (USPPN: 2013/0138450; hereinafter Vigneux) in further view of Di Lascia et al. (USPPN: 2013/0226608; hereinafter Di Lascia) and Lipscher et al. (USPPN: 2005/0273363; hereinafter Lipscher).
As to claim 1, Vigneux teaches A system (e.g., see Fig. 1) comprising:
a wearable monitoring device of a user configured to be continuously worn by the user and to capture first patient data of the user, the first patient data comprising data that is inputted by the user via an application on an electronic healthcare [kiosk] and data that is captured by the wearable monitoring device that is worn by the user and is in wireless communication with the electronic healthcare [kiosk] (See 112 rejection above. e.g., see [0025], [0046] teaching a plurality of devices in connection with one another to receive patient data, wherein one such device includes a heart monitor and another includes a device to receive inputted patient data, which is reads upon a wearable monitoring device configured to be continuously worn by a user and consistent with at least [0030] of Applicant’s originally filed specification);
a patient portal (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0028] teaching an application to allow individuals to manage, consult, control medical patient data of a patient (i.e., patient portal)) comprising:
a data retrieval engine configured to receive, from the electronic healthcare [kiosk] over a network, the first patient data of the user (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0028], [0070] wherein the application collects health related data from one or more devices over a communications network through the use of one or more processors);
a data transmission engine configured to transmit second patient data of the user from a health care system to the electronic healthcare [kiosk] over the network as the user interacts with the patient portal, thereby enabling the electronic healthcare [kiosk] to present the second patient data to the user (e.g., see [0033], [0070] wherein clinical feedback/suggestions/content are provided to the patient (i.e., second patient data of the user) through the use of one or more processor. See also [0037], [0038], [0043] wherein medical records of the patient (i.e., second patient data of the user) are provided to the parent on their user device, wherein the patient and parent user device may be the same);
a user activity monitoring engine configured to capture interaction data of the user (e.g., see [0031], [0034], [0046], [0070] wherein user task and user interaction with the application are monitored through the use of one or more processors); and
an interface configured to indicate rewards provided to the user and enable redemption of the rewards by the user (e.g., see [0062], [0064] teaching an interface for providing awards such as points, prizes, new games, etc.);
an interaction based gamification system (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0070] describing a system comprising one or more processor) comprising:
a data receipt engine configured to obtain the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data of the user from the patient portal (e.g., see [0046], [0048], [0052], [0070] teaching a management device which receives data from the patient device, patient progression of tasks, other patient related health data, and clinician patient health data to generate task rules for each patient through the use of one or more processors);
a reward rules management engine configured to generate one or more reward rules specified by the healthcare provider of the user, the one or more reward rules being different from the rewards, the one or more reward rules being specific to the user based on a health condition of the user and being associated with a task to complete or a goal to attain (e.g., see [0052], [0057], [0070] wherein each patient has a task rule set customized for each patient as specified by the clinician and based on the received patient data and corresponds to a completion or timing/frequency of specific tasks through the use of one or more processors); and
a reward determination engine (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0070] teaching one or more processors) configured to:
determine if the user has completed the task or attained the goal (e.g., see [0046], [0052], [0059], [0064] wherein patient progress/success in completing various tasks are monitored. Notably, this claim limitation and subsequent steps are contingent limitations. Applicant is reminded that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure." MPEP § 2111.04. In this case the determining if a user has completed the task and the subsequent steps that follow in response to the user having completed the task only occurs if it is determined that a user has completed the task or attained the goal. Since the claim does not require a step of the condition that occurs in the event the user has not completed the task the prior art does not need to teach (or disclose) claim language that is not required by the claim but for the reward determination engine for performing the steps. Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims are further rejected below);
if the user has completed the task or attained the goal, determine a particular reward by applying the one or more reward rules to the first patient data, the second patient data, and the interaction data (e.g., see [0051], [0052], [0062] determining the various rewards, whether it be a prize type with or without limits, points, awards, specific option, new abilities or access to new portions of the game are provided to the user based on task completion);
in response to the determination of the particular reward, activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward (The broadest reasonable interpretation of “link” includes a “connecting element or factor” (see Merriam Webster Dictionary). Notably, while applicant’s originally filed specification describes a redemption button that can be activated to redeem their rewards and further recites activating a ribbon to reveal a reward based on completing a task, applicant’s originally filed specification fails to describe any “link”, much less one that is “activated in response to the determination of the particular reward of the completed task…to redeem the particular reward”. Accordingly, where the prior art teaches some connecting element or factor which is otherwise enabled or produced (i.e., activate) in response to the determination of the particular reward, then it meets the claimed limitation. E.g., see [0031], [0062], [0064] wherein in response to a completed task and a determination of the type and/or magnitude of the prize or award for the completed task, a patient is provided said prize or award, such as access to new abilities or portions in a game); and
send a notification [to the user] indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user, the notification including the summary of earned rewards (e.g., see [0059] wherein a notification can be provided, including attainment of specific prices, number of points, or other achievement quantity).
While Vigneux teaches providing notifications to a user device and wherein the notification can include a summary of earned rewards, Vigneux fails to explicitly teach sending the notification to the user. Notably, Vigneux does teach providing notifications to the parent device and/or management device, Vigneux does teach the parent and patient device can be the same device (e.g., see [0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious the notification be sent to the (patient) user to encourage the patient to become more autonomous in their health care (e.g., see [0059] of Vigneux).
Nonetheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution and in the same field of endeavor of rewarding healthcare behavior, Di Lascia teaches send to the user indicating that the particular reward has been provided to the user (e.g., see [0095] wherein a patient user is provided a list of their available rewards and points).
While Vigneux teaches providing access to determined prizes or awards and therefore reads upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward, it is noted Di Lascia additionally teaches this limitation.
Di Lascia further teaches activate a link in the patient portal that enables the user to redeem the particular reward (e.g., see [0084] wherein a user is provided the visibility (i.e., activate a link) of coupons and or connection to coupons that reside at other websites (i.e., activate a link) to specific users).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Vigneux in view of Di Lascia with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to incentivize participation in positive health behaviors (e.g., see [0022] of Di Lascia).
While Vigneux teaches a plurality of devices to transmit and receive patient data, Vigneux-Di Lascia fail to teach a device being a kiosk.
However, in the same field of endeavor of patient healthcare management, Lipscher teaches a kiosk (e.g., see Fig. 1, [0039] teaching the use of kiosks to transmit and receive medical data). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Vigneux-Di Lascia in view of Lipscher with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification as a simple substitution of one known type of device for another to yield the predictable results of providing a computing device for inputting/receiving information from a fixed location (See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the interaction data further indicates a user interaction to access specific patient data through the patient portal (e.g., see [0045] wherein each patient is monitored to access their specific patient data).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the interaction data further indicates a user interaction to update specific patient data through the patient portal (e.g., see [0046], [0047] wherein patient progress and/or performance per task is monitored).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the interaction data further indicates a user interaction to perform a specific communication with the health care system through the patient portal (e.g., see [0038] wherein different types of communications are provided through the portal. While Vigneux teaches the communication being from the parent device and/or management device, Vigneux does teach the parent and patient device can be the same device (e.g., see [0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious the notification be sent to the (patient) user to encourage the patient to become more autonomous in their health care (e.g., see [0059] of Vigneux)).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the particular reward includes a first reward value associated with the first patient data, a second reward value associated with the second patient data, and a third reward value associated with the interaction data (e.g., see [0051], [0057] wherein the amount and/or type of awards are customizable to each task).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the patient portal is further configured to present information on the particular reward on a user interface thereof, the user interface including a first object indicating a first reward value associated with the first patient data, a second object indicating a second reward value associated with the second patient data, and a third object indicating a third reward value associated with the interaction data (e.g., see [0031], [0062], [0064] a patient is provided to the determined points, prize, or award for each task completion, such as access to new abilities or portions in a game are presented to the user. While the limitation is taught in Vigneux, notably, Di Lascia additionally teaches the limitation in at least [0084] wherein the users are visibly provided their rewards).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the reward determination engine determines the particular reward by determining whether to provide a reward, and determining a reward amount responsive to determining to provide a reward (e.g., see [0051], [0057] wherein the amount and/or type of awards are customizable to each task).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Vigneux further teaches wherein the reward rules management engine is configured to update the one or more reward rules based on an input from the health care system (e.g., see [0051], [0057] wherein the amount and/or type of awards are customizable to each task and are adjustable by the provider or parent).
As to claims 9-16, the claims are directed to the method implemented on the system of claims 1-8 and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 17-20, the claims are directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium implemented on the system of claims 1-4 and are similarly rejected.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681