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 .
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/829,944 filed on 9/10/2024.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-17 have been rejected as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “component/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:
“a first module” in independent Claim 1, 16, 17 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “module” and functional language “for combining user’s objective health data and user’s subjective health data” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“a second module” in independent Claim 1, 16, 17 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “module” and functional language “for producing an assessment to the user” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“a third module” in independent Claim 1, 16, 17 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “module” and functional language “for generating an explanation to the user” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“a fourth module” in independent Claim 9 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “module” and functional language “that based on the context of the patient dynamically triggers at least one event to capture additional subjective health data” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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, it/they is/are 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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL-The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 9, 16, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the following limitations of claims 1, 9, 16, 17 fail to comply with the written description requirement, since they do not adequately link or associate adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in the claims identified to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1, 9, 16, 17 recites the limitation for “first module, second module, third module, fourth module” which have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant's specification [28, 30, 31, 37, 72, 79] does not describe any algorithm for performing the claimed functions of the component, and the component is not clearly tied to any hardware and therefore lacks structure (see MPEP 218l(Il)(B)). Therefore, the specification does not provide written description support for this limitation as there is no corresponding adequate structure disclosed in the specification to perform the claimed functions of the component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "and the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitations in claims 1, 9, 16, 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification discloses a hardware structure of a generic PC/processor, laptop or tablet terminal which is not considered an adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. To perform the claimed functions, a computer comprising of hardware (processor, memory, etc.) and software/algorithm to be programed to perform the functions may be considered an adequate structure yet there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the functions in Claim 1, 9, 16, 17, (Applicant, [28, 30, 31, 37, 72, 79]). The use of the term “module” in the claim language is not sufficient system structure for performing the disclosed function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “module” can be performed by any type of software and hardware combination which can be any generic computer. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which “module” structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-17 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, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a method for information retrieval for producing an assessment and explanation to a user.
The limitations of A method for the semantic understanding of subjective and objective health data in systems for supporting the self-management of a user with at least one chronic condition, said system providing health assessment to the user related to the at least one chronic condition, wherein said method at least involves using a first module for combining user's objective health data and user's subjective health data, a second module for producing an assessment to the user and a third module for generating an explanation to the user, the method […], said method comprising: a) receiving […] a plurality of first health parameters of a user, wherein said first health parameters denote user's objective health data and wherein at least one of the first health parameters represents data[…]; and b) receiving […] a plurality of second health parameters of a user, wherein said second health parameters comprise at least one subjective health measurement; wherein said at least one subjective health measurement denotes a perception of the user's subjective health; and c) combining by the first module[…] the objective health data and the subjective health data; and d) producing by the second module […], at least one health related assessment to the user comprising content data, said assessment based on the combined objective and subjective health data; and wherein said producing […]; and e) generating by the third module […], at least one explanation to the user, wherein said explanation is related to the produced assessment; and f) providing the at least one assessment and the at least one explanation to the user, 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, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the data processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (computer), this claim encompasses a person looking at subjective and objective data, producing an assessment and generating an explanation in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of (claim 1 and 14) a processor with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that implements the identified abstract idea. The processor with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a external device that implements the identified abstract idea. The external device is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic external device performing a generic computer functions of measuring) 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional element of “uses artificial intelligence methods” for said producing an assessment. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim (claim 16, 17) further recites the additional elements of a communication channel configured to communicate with an external devices and store data. These communicating and storing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does 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 a processor with a non-transitory storage medium 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”).
The claim does 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 a external device 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”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using artificial intelligence methods to produce an assessment was found to represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a communication channel configured to communicate with an external devices and store data were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-15 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 4 merely describes subjective health data. Claim 5 merely describes subjective health data used to enrich objective health data. Claim 6 merely integration of feedback. Claim 7 merely describes producing assessments with interaction with previous assessments. Claim 8, 12 merely describes assessment. Claim 9 merely describes triggering of events to capture additional information. Claim 10 merely describes events including a psychometric. Claim 11 merely describes scheduling of trigger of the at least one event. Claim 14 merely describes first and second health parameters and producing includes weighting to produce assessment. Claim 15 merely describes characterizing fatigue and providing insight that supports management of fatigue.
Claim 2, 3 also includes the additional element of “an external device, sensor” which is analyzed the same as the “measured by an external device” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim 2 merely describes communicating data with the external device and at least one processor. Claim 3 merely describes receiving objective health data.
Claim 13 also includes the additional element of “artificial intelligence models” which is analyzed the same as in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons. Claim 13 merely describes adapting the assessment.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZWEIG (US 20220108775)
CLAIM 1, 16, 17
A method for the semantic understanding of subjective and objective health data in systems for supporting the self-management of a user with at least one chronic condition, (Zweig para 10 teaches a system including a processing circuitry; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to perform the method disclosed. Para 30 teaches users may have chronic diseases. )
said system providing health assessment to the user related to the at least one chronic condition, (Zweig para 16 teaches presenting customized questions to patient. Para 46 teaches health-related data may indicate the user's health condition, chronic diseases, mental health issues, and the like.)
wherein said method at least involves using a first module for combining user's objective health data and user's subjective health data, (Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, awake, sleeping, angry, and the like, and the user's environment, for example, of being alone, with people, time, weather, etc. Para 15 teaches sensor data and para 22 further teaches examples of sensors used. )
a second module for producing an assessment to the user and (Zweig para 16 teaches presenting a question)
a third module for generating an explanation to the user, (Zweig para 44 teaches sending a notification to a medical care team, relative and the like and notification may be sent to a personal computer, server, and the like. )
the method carried out by at least one processor, said method comprising: (Zweig para 10 teaches a system including a processing circuitry; and a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the system to perform the method disclosed.)
a) receiving by the at least one processor a plurality of first health parameters of a user, wherein said first health parameters denote user's objective health data and wherein at least one of the first health parameters represents data measured by an external device; and (Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, awake, sleeping, angry, and the like, and the user's environment, for example, of being alone, with people, time, weather, etc. Para 22 teaches sensors (i.e., objective data). Para 15 teaches sensor data. Para 22 teaches input devices, such as various sensors, detectors, microphones, touch sensors, movement detectors, cameras, and the like. In an embodiment, the sensors 140 may be implemented as virtual sensors that receive inputs from online services, for example, the weather forecast, a user's calendar, and the like. )
b) receiving by the at least one processor a plurality of second health parameters of a user, wherein said second health parameters comprise at least one subjective health measurement; wherein said at least one subjective health measurement denotes a perception of the user's subjective health; and (Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, angry. Para 35 teaches user feedback as input for example, the user was injured, not feeling good, crying, stressed, angry, sleeping)
c) combining by the first module in the at least one processor the objective health data and the subjective health data; and (Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, awake, sleeping, angry, and the like, and the user's environment, for example, of being alone, with people, time, weather, etc. Para 22 teaches sensors (i.e., objective data). Para 35 teaches the collected feedback data and historic state is applied to the previously determined policy to create a new policy. That is, set of data including, but not limited to, health-related data, historical data, feedback data, and historic states may be applied to at least one algorithm, such as machine learning algorithm, to generate a policy for each of the users )
d) producing by the second module in the at least one processor, at least one health related assessment to the user comprising content data, said assessment based on the combined objective and subjective health data; and wherein said producing uses artificial intelligence methods; and (Zweig para 34 using machine learning algorithm to create a policy for how to determine a customized health based question based on health-related data and historical data. Para 35 teaches the set of data including, but not limited to, health-related data, historical data, feedback data, and historic states may be applied to at least one algorithm, such as machine learning algorithm, to generate a policy for each of the users)
e) generating by the third module in the at least one processor, at least one explanation to the user, wherein said explanation is related to the produced assessment; and (Zweig para 44 teaches sending a notification to a medical care team, relative and the like and notification may be sent to a personal computer, server, and the like. )
f) providing the at least one assessment and the at least one explanation to the user. (Zweig para 44 teaches sending a notification to a medical care team, relative and the like and notification may be sent to a personal computer, server, and the like. Zweig para 16 teaches presenting a question)
CLAIM 2
wherein said at least one processor is configured to communicate with at least one external device and wherein said external device is configured to exchange data with the at least one processor. (Para 22 teaches input devices, such as various sensors, detectors, microphones, touch sensors, movement detectors, cameras, and the like. In an embodiment, the sensors 140 may be implemented as virtual sensors that receive inputs from online services, for example, the weather forecast, a user's calendar, and the like. )
CLAIM 3
wherein said objective health data is received from at least one of sensor and clinical data set. (Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, awake, sleeping, angry, and the like, and the user's environment, for example, of being alone, with people, time, weather, etc. Para 22 teaches sensors (i.e., objective data). Para 15 teaches sensor data. Para 22 teaches input devices, such as various sensors, detectors, microphones, touch sensors, movement detectors, cameras, and the like. In an embodiment, the sensors 140 may be implemented as virtual sensors that receive inputs from online services, for example, the weather forecast, a user's calendar, and the like. Para 46 teaches a historical data with respect to each of the users and health-related data may indicate the user's health condition, chronic diseases, mental health issues and Historical data may include general historical information of the user, the user's habits, hobbies, preferences, patterns, and more)
CLAIM 4
wherein said subjective health data comprises at least one of psychometric parameters, quizzes for knowledge evaluation, and the like. (Zweig para 18 teaches projecting customized health-related questions. Para 30 teaches health data including mental health issues. Para 35 teaches historical data including whether the user was injured, not feeling good, crying, stressed, angry. Examiner submits “for knowledge evaluation” is the intended use and holds no patentable weight.)
CLAIM 5
wherein said subjective health data is used to enrich the objective health data. (Para 35 teaches the collected feedback data and historic state is applied to the previously determined policy to create a new policy. That is, set of data including, but not limited to, health-related data, historical data, feedback data, and historic states may be applied to at least one algorithm, such as machine learning algorithm, to generate a policy for each of the users. Para 17 teaches being able to define whether the user is, for example, awake, sleeping, angry, and the like, and the user's environment, for example, of being alone, with people, time, weather, etc. Para 15 teaches sensor data and para 22 further teaches examples of sensors used. Examiner submits “used to enrich …” is intended use and holds no patentable weight.)
CLAIM 6
wherein said subjective health data at least comprises semantic integration of the subjective health data captured in a digital health solution with explicit user's feedback. (Zweig para 35 teaches collecting user response to question and user historic state with explicit feedback as the response which may be yes, no or freeform response. )
CLAIM 7
wherein said processor has further access to previous assessments provided by the system and wherein said producing further comprises the interaction of the patient with at least one previous assessment. (Zweig para 35 teaches collecting user response to question and user historic state with explicit feedback as the response which may be yes, no or freeform and this data is applied to create a new policy based on previously created policy which based on health-related data, historical data, feedback data, and historic states.)
CLAIM 8
wherein the at least one assessment is related to the physical and mental health of the user and relies on the semantic integration of objective and subjective health data. (Zweig para 16 teaches asking a custom health related question based on health related data. Para 30 teaches Health-related data may include current and historic information that is indicative to the user's health condition, chronic diseases, mental health issues, and so on.)
CLAIM 9
wherein the method further involves a fourth module that based on the context of the patient dynamically triggers at least one event to capture additional subjective health data, said additional subjective health data used to complement and increase the quality of the subjective health data. (Zweig para 37 teaches selecting a question based on actively or passively collected data. Examiner submits “used to complement and increase the quality of the subjective data” is intended use and holds no patentable weight. )
CLAIM 10
wherein said at least one event comprises launching a psychometric, said psychometric performed after at least one of physical activity of the user and a sleep period of the user. (Zweig para 43 teaches asking “how did you sleep?” and detecting health-related patterns and abnormal health-related behavior using question responses after behaviors. )
CLAIM 11
wherein scheduling the trigger of the at least one event is based on methods that dynamically adjust the number of triggers based on user's engagement data constraints. (Zweig para 40 teaches adjusting when to ask a question based on user state. )
CLAIM 12
wherein said providing further comprises tailoring the at least one assessment and the at least one explanation to the personal characteristics of the user. (Zweig para 45 teaches customizing question policies and providing a customized question to a user. para 44 teaches sending a notification to a medical care team, relative and the like and notification may be sent to a personal computer, server based on the determination of health parameters. )
CLAIM 13
wherein said producing further comprises adapting the at least one assessment to the user, by combining artificial intelligence models about symptoms predicted trends and their contributing factors. (Zweig para 49 teaches creating question based on current policy and current state of a user and current state may be generated using a machine learning algorithm that may be based on current state of the user. Para 36 teaches customized questions based on diagnosis protocol to enable a better understanding of user health condition and there may be multiple diagnosis protocols utilized for diagnosing and monitoring conditions such as overweight, diabetes, hypertension, schizophrenia, backache. )
CLAIM 14
wherein said first and second health parameters further comprise weighing factors and wherein said producing further considers said weighing factors to produce the at least one assessment. (Zweig para 18 teaches rules for customized questions based weights, scores, ranking, and the like of certain parameters, to objectively analyze the user input data)
CLAIM 15
wherein the method further comprises an approach for the characterization of fatigue, wherein said producing further applies software that provides insights that support the management of fatigue. (Zweig para 44 teaches a dashboard for monitoring health related parameters including sleep quality and generating a notification to a care team, relative, etc. that at least one parameter crossed a threshold value. (i.e., poor sleep quality is analogous to fatigue and a notification is insight that supports the management of fatigue by bring it to attention to a care team, relative, etc.))
Prior Art Made of Record and Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140096078 Prior
[0103] A comprehensive questionnaire completed by a single respondent is provided below in Table 3. […] The user may tap or click on any of the numbers. Each number will bring the user to that particular number question asked in the diagnostic. Users are provided with an explanation and detailed information to educate the user on the relevance of the question and answer to their skin concern. The user may then exit the program by taping or clicking on the "quit" icon at the top of the screen
US 20220044815 Shaw
[Abstract] Methods and apparatus for the application of reinforcement learning to animal medical diagnostics. In one embodiment, a system is disclosed that utilizes two (2) RL agents that are arranged sequentially and that are optimized independently from one another. The first RL agent is an assessment RL agent which takes as input from one or more of: outputs from classification artificial intelligence (AI) engines; outputs from subjective biological data storage devices, and outputs from objective biological data storage devices. Using these input(s), the assessment RL agent outputs a set of assessments which evaluate a set of conditions associated with an animal. This set of assessments is then provided as input to a second RL agent known-as a plan RL agent which determines a set of treatment recommendations and diagnostics based off this determined set of assessments.
US 20200335183 TOMMASI
[Abstract] Embodiments for intelligent generation of customized questions or questionnaires by a processor. One or more customized questions or questionnaires may be generated according to a user profile, similar profiles of alternative users, one or more historical interactions with the alternative users, one or more goals defined by a domain experts, domain knowledge, historical questions or questionnaires, or a combination thereof using a machine learning operation.
Yunusova, Assessing the Mental Health of Emerging Adults Through a Mental Health App: Protocol for a Prospective Pilot Study, 2021 March 2
[Objective] In our prospective study, we aim to conduct multimodal assessments to determine the feasibility of an individualized approach for understanding the contextual factors of changes in daily affect, sleep, physiology, and activity. In other words, we aim to use event mining to predict changes in mental health.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KYLE TAPIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1662. The examiner can normally be reached 830 - 530.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687