DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 12, 18 is/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.
The terms “typical” and “atypical” in claims 4, 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “typical” and “atypical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How is a day considered “typical” or “atypical”? Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claims 2, 10, 18 recites the limitation "the updated historical health data in the at least one memory" in line 7 (claim 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “historical health data stored in the at least one memory” in line 7. Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “identify the updated historical health data in the at least one memory” as: “identify updated historical health data in the at least one memory.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 9 is drawn to at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture). Claim 17 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 9, 17) recites… receive a first input…, the first input comprising health data associated with a first time period and a user profile associated with the user computing device; identify historical health data…associated with the health data, wherein the historical health data comprises first historical health data associated with the user profile before the first time period and second historical health data associated with a plurality of user profiles different from the user profile before the first time period; based upon the health data and the historical health data, determine additional health data associated with the health data; cause a plurality of data fields associated with the user profile to be populated with the additional health data; receive a second input…, the second input comprising modified additional health data comprising at least one modification to the additional health data; and update the historical health data…to include the modified additional health data as being associated with the health data.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor,” the claim encompasses rules or instructions to collect data (i.e., a user’s health data), analyze the collected data, and output relevant data based on the analysis accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships 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.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., A healthcare management computing system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory; a user computing device). Claim 9 recites additional elements (i.e., at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon; at least one processor; a user computing device). Claim 17 recites additional elements (i.e., at least one processor; at least one memory; a user computing device). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having a processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0173-0174; ¶ 0187; ¶ 0191-0195), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a user computing device” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing input), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having a processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a user computing device” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., providing input), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, 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 generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, 18, 20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 6, 14, 19 further recites the additional elements of “causing an icon to be added to a portion of the calendar associated with the first time period,” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., “icon”) and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims 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. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” 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 the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2022/0130277 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Ahmad").
Regarding claim 1, Ahmad teaches a healthcare management computing system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory (Ahmad: ¶ 0070), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive a first input from a user computing device, the first input comprising health data associated with a first time period and a user profile associated with the user computing device (Ahmad: ¶ 0030, i.e., “Each user data record may include, for example, a timestamped history of the user's ketone measurements (and any other measurements such as weight, glucose level, heart rate, etc.); demographic data such as age, gender, and height, and other user-supplied data such as medications taken; a timestamped history of the classifications and weight loss (or other health) programs assigned to the user, including program updates and recommendations generated by the system; weight loss goals; lifestyle habits; personal preferences; food intake events; exercise events; diet non-compliance events; user feedback on program satisfaction; nutritional sophistication level; etc. For some types of data, the users may provide the data to the system 40 by entering it into the mobile application 32, a web-based portal, or other data collection interface”);
identify historical health data stored in the at least one memory (Ahmad: figure 1, i.e., “User Data Records” 44; ¶ 0070, i.e., “the health coaching system 40, including its illustrated components 42, 44, 46, 48 (and the additional components shown in FIG. 5, discussed below), may be implemented by a computer system programmed with executable program modules stored on one or more computer-readable media (hard disk drives, solid state memory devices, etc.)… The data repositories 44, 46 shown in FIG. 1 may include databases, flat file systems, and/or other types of data storage systems, and may use hard disk drives, solid state memories, and/or other types of non-transitory computer storage devices”) and associated with the health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0030), wherein the historical health data comprises first historical health data associated with the user profile before the first time period and second historical health data associated with a plurality of user profiles different from the user profile before the first time period (Ahmad: ¶ 0021, i.e., “the program participants will be referred to primarily as “users” of the system”; ¶ 0122, i.e., “comparing the data records 44 of the users…For example, age, gender, weight, weight loss goals, psychological profile (if known) and ketone score history”);
based upon the health data and the historical health data, determine additional health data associated with the health data (Ahmad: figure 6, i.e., “output [filtered list of programs] to target user” 90 is based on “users most similar to target user”; ¶ 0122-0126);
cause a plurality of data fields associated with the user profile to be populated with the additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0126, i.e., “In block 90, the ranked list is filtered and then output for presentation to the target user”);
receive a second input from the user computing device, the second input comprising modified additional health data comprising at least one modification to the additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0078, i.e., “if multiple options are presented, feedback from the user or coach may be solicited and recorded regarding which option is selected”; ¶ 0107, i.e., “If the user is given an option to select between program options, the program options are preferably presented in a ranked order to increase the likelihood that the user will select a top-ranked program, and the user's selection is recorded by the system”); and
update the historical health data in the at least one memory to include the modified additional health data as being associated with the health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0030; ¶ 0078, i.e., “feedback from the user or coach may be solicited and recorded regarding which option is selected”; ¶ 0107, i.e., “the user's selection is recorded by the system”).
Regarding claim 2, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a third input from the user computing device, the third input comprising second health data associated with a second time period and the user profile, wherein the second health data comprises at least one data entry that is the same as the health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0105, Table 7, i.e., the user’s “Ketone Score” is “2” on “Day” “1” and “Day” “10”);
identify the updated historical health data in the at least one memory (Ahmad: figure 1, i.e., “User Data Records” 44; ¶ 0070; ¶ 0122, i.e., “This step may be performed periodically (e.g., once per day or once week) as an off-line task”); and
cause a second plurality of data fields associated with the user profile to be populated with the modified additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0133, i.e., “The view in FIG. 8 also includes an indication of the weight loss program or “plan” currently assigned to the user”).
Regarding claim 3, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the first time period is one day (Ahmad: ¶ 0024, i.e., “the mobile application 32 may include a “daily journal” or “weekly questionnaire” feature through which the users can record various types of information and events”; ¶ 0059, i.e., “daily ketone measurements”).
Regarding claim 4, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the health data is associated with one of a typical day for a user associated with the user profile or an atypical day for the user (Ahmad: ¶ 0061, i.e., “the task of classifying the user as being in a fat storage phase, neutral phase, or fat burn phase is performed once the user completes three daily tasks”).
Regarding claim 5, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the health data comprises at least one of an observation severity, a count, a presence, a numeric value with a unit, a tag, a timing (Ahmad: ¶ 0030), a duration, a free text note, a voice note, or a media image.
Regarding claim 7, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the user profile and the plurality of user profiles different from the user profile are associated with a same health condition (Ahmad: ¶ 0122, i.e., “age, gender, weight, weight loss goals, psychological profile (if known) and ketone score history may be given relatively high amounts of weight for purposes of calculating user similarity”).
Regarding claim 8, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based upon the historical health data and the modified additional health data, determine one or more suggestions for a user associated with the user profile to address a health condition identified in the modified additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0091-0096; ¶ 0135, i.e., “The scorecard may be updated when, for example, the user completes the three daily tasks mentioned above, namely measuring their weight, measuring their ketone score, and answering a set of questions. The report card shows the user's current fat gain/loss phase (shown as “fat burn” in this example), program phase, ketone score, and weight. The “concerns” section includes auto-selected messaging related to the user's progress and to any auto-selected program modifications”).
Regarding claim 9, Ahmad teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor (Ahmad: ¶ 0070), cause the at least one processor to:
receive a first input from a user computing device, the first input comprising health data associated with a first time period and a user profile associated with the user computing device (Ahmad: ¶ 0030, i.e., “Each user data record may include, for example, a timestamped history of the user's ketone measurements (and any other measurements such as weight, glucose level, heart rate, etc.); demographic data such as age, gender, and height, and other user-supplied data such as medications taken; a timestamped history of the classifications and weight loss (or other health) programs assigned to the user, including program updates and recommendations generated by the system; weight loss goals; lifestyle habits; personal preferences; food intake events; exercise events; diet non-compliance events; user feedback on program satisfaction; nutritional sophistication level; etc. For some types of data, the users may provide the data to the system 40 by entering it into the mobile application 32, a web-based portal, or other data collection interface”);
identify historical health data stored in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Ahmad: figure 1, i.e., “User Data Records” 44; ¶ 0070, i.e., “the health coaching system 40, including its illustrated components 42, 44, 46, 48 (and the additional components shown in FIG. 5, discussed below), may be implemented by a computer system programmed with executable program modules stored on one or more computer-readable media (hard disk drives, solid state memory devices, etc.)… The data repositories 44, 46 shown in FIG. 1 may include databases, flat file systems, and/or other types of data storage systems, and may use hard disk drives, solid state memories, and/or other types of non-transitory computer storage devices”) and associated with the health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0030), wherein the historical health data comprises first historical health data associated with the user profile before the first time period and second historical health data associated with a plurality of user profiles different from the user profile before the first time period (Ahmad: ¶ 0021, i.e., “the program participants will be referred to primarily as “users” of the system”; ¶ 0122, i.e., “comparing the data records 44 of the users…For example, age, gender, weight, weight loss goals, psychological profile (if known) and ketone score history”);
based upon the health data and the historical health data, determine additional health data associated with the health data (Ahmad: figure 6, i.e., “output [filtered list of programs] to target user” 90 is based on “users most similar to target user”; ¶ 0122-0126);
cause a plurality of data fields associated with the user profile to be populated with the additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0126, i.e., “In block 90, the ranked list is filtered and then output for presentation to the target user”);
receive a second input from the user computing device, the second input comprising modified additional health data comprising at least one modification to the additional health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0078, i.e., “if multiple options are presented, feedback from the user or coach may be solicited and recorded regarding which option is selected”; ¶ 0107, i.e., “If the user is given an option to select between program options, the program options are preferably presented in a ranked order to increase the likelihood that the user will select a top-ranked program, and the user's selection is recorded by the system”); and
update the historical health data in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to include the modified additional health data as being associated with the health data (Ahmad: ¶ 0030; ¶ 0078, i.e., “feedback from the user or coach may be solicited and recorded regarding which option is selected”; ¶ 0107, i.e., “the user's selection is recorded by the system”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 2, and thus, claim 10 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 3, and thus, claim 11 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 4, and thus, claim 12 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 5, and thus, claim 13 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 7, and thus, claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 8, and thus, claim 16 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 1, and thus, claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 2, and thus, claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 8, and thus, claim 20 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2022/0130277 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Ahmad") in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2023/0148910 A1 (hereinafter referred to as "Hu").
Regarding claim 6, Ahmad teaches the healthcare management computing system of Claim 1.
Yet, Ahmad does not explicitly teach, but Hu teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate a calendar associated with the user profile (Hu: ¶ 0163, i.e., “displaying, on a display screen of the user device 102, a patient's stress data in the form of a calendar”); and
cause an icon to be added to a portion of the calendar associated with the first time period, wherein the icon is associated with the health data (Hu: ¶ 0163, i.e., under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood “a particular stress level” of Hu as the data in the “user data record” of Ahmad, which is the claimed health data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include generate a calendar associated with the user profile; and cause an icon to be added to a portion of the calendar associated with the first time period, wherein the icon is associated with the health data, as taught by Hu, within the system of Ahmad, with the motivation to “help the patient view how their…levels varied throughout the day” (Hu: ¶ 0163).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 6, and thus, claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations analogous to those already addressed in claim 6, and thus, claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0262604 A1 teaches tracking a user’s daily health data and comparing it to population data.
WO 2021/150617 A1 teaches generating a modifying a care plan based on similar health data for a patient.
“User Preferences and Design Recommendations for an mHealth App to Promote Cystic Fibrosis Self-Management” teaches using mobile apps to receive health data from users daily and manage chronic illnesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683