Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action represents the first action on the merits
Claims 1-6 are pending
Priority
This Application claims priority to Foreign Application KR10-2023-0106200 filed 14 August 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on 14 August 2024 and 21 March 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner.
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 1-6 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 1,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) method and apparatus. The limitations of:
Claims 1 and 4 (Claim 1 being representative)
receiving, for phenotype-based digital treatment, data related to a biomarker of a user;
determining, for phenotype-based digital treatment, a phenotype of the user based on the biomarker;
and performing, for phenotype-based digital treatment, digital treatment based on the phenotype.
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional element of an apparatus that implements the identified abstract idea. The apparatus is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an apparatus to perform the noted steps amounts 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 (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-3, 5-6 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2,5 merely describe(s) categorizing the disease. Claim(s) 3,6 merely describe(s) adjusting the treatment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noël et al (US Publication No. 20220301715) in view of VAUGHAN et al (US Publication No. 20210174919).
Regarding Claim 1
Noël teaches a method of adaptive digital treatment based on a phenotype of a user, the method comprising:
receiving, by an apparatus for phenotype-based digital treatment, data related to a biomarker of a user [Noël at Para. 0056 teaches the present invention is based on the holistic collection of a number of useful biomarkers which are analyzed and depicted in a form of an individual biomarker profile otherwise known as a digital twin profile];
determining, by the apparatus for phenotype-based digital treatment, a phenotype of the user based on the biomarker [Noël at Para. 0059 teaches thus, in one embodiment, the present invention provides a system for measuring and creating a digital twin profile providing a phenotyped digital twin.];
Noël does teach and performing, by the apparatus for phenotype-based digital treatment, digital treatment based on the phenotype.
VAUGHAN teaches and performing, by the apparatus for phenotype-based digital treatment, digital treatment based on the phenotype [VAUGHAN at Para. 0178 teaches the app can be installed on a plurality of digital devices, such as a first device for the subject to receive digital therapy and second device for the caregiver to monitor progress of the therapy (receive digital therapy interpreted as performing digital treatment; interpret to combine with phenotypes of Noël)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine phenotype of Noël with the digital treatment of VAUGHAN with the motivation to improve the accuracy and consistency of the identification outcomes of patients [VAUGHAN at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 2
Noël/VAUGHAN teach the method of claim 1,
Noël/VAUGHAN further teach wherein the phenotype is generated to correspond to a category, and the category is set based on a disease to set a digital treatment algorithm for the digital treatment [VAUGHAN at Para. 0082 teaches the diagnosis module communicates its diagnosis to the digital device 110, as well as to therapeutic module 134, which uses the diagnosis to suggest therapies to be performed to treat any diagnosed symptoms (diagnosed symptoms interpreted as disease)].
Regarding Claim 3
Noël/VAUGHAN teach the method of claim 2,
Noël/VAUGHAN further teach wherein the category and the phenotype adaptively change based on a digital treatment result of the digital treatment [VAUGHAN at Para. 0178 teaches a feedback loop is thus created between the user and the cloud-based server (for example, the personalized medicine system 130), in which the evaluation of the subject subsequent to the initiation of therapy is used to adjust therapy to improve the response].
Regarding Claim 4
Noël teaches an apparatus for phenotype-based digital treatment for performing an adaptive digital treatment based on a phenotype of a user, the apparatus being implemented to:
receive data related to a biomarker of a user [Noël at Para. 0056 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
determine a phenotype of the user based on the biomarker [Noël at Para. 0059 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
Noël does not teach and perform digital treatment based on the phenotype.
VAUGHAN teaches and perform digital treatment based on the phenotype [VAUGHAN at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine phenotype of Noël with the digital treatment of VAUGHAN with the motivation to improve the accuracy and consistency of the identification outcomes of patients [VAUGHAN at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 5
Claim(s) 5 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 2, thus Claim(s) 5 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim(s) 6 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 6 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Jain et al (US Publication No. 20200131581) discloses a system and method for an adjustable bio-stream self-selecting system.
Narayan et al (Foreign Publication JP-2021521964-A) discloses systems and methods for identifying and treating diseases.
Cohen et al (US Publication No. 20230091240) discloses systems and methods for assessing mental health of a person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683