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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application filed 12/17/2024. It is noted that application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/066071 filed 06/15/2023 which claims foreign priority to EP 22180417.2 filed 06/22/2022. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated has been acknowledged and considered.
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 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 seems to be dependent upon itself and reference the wrong base claim. Clarification is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. (currently amended) A computer-implemented method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, the method comprising:
receiving, from a patient database (3), patient data (5) indicative of a health condition of the patient, the patient data (5) comprising sensor data (7) which has been generated by at least one sensor (8) for determining the health condition of the patient;
inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for selecting questions, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4); and
outputting at least one selected question or a list (13) of selected questions to be answered by the patient as output data (14) by the question selection algorithm (10),wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one of anamnesis data (16), diagnosis data (17), or medication data (19) of the patient.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The limitations of -- Receiving patient data (including sensor data) indicative of a condition; Inputting the data into a question selection algorithm; Selecting questions from a predetermined list; and Outputting selected question(s) for the patient to answer as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is directed to collecting information, analyzing/processing information, and presenting the results (i.e., a tailored set of questions) which is a concept relating to tracking or filtering information. Tracking information or filtering content has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). This is a method of organizing patient/sensor data thus falling into one category of abstract idea. That is other than reciting “computer-implemented” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from describing concepts related to receiving and organizing patient data between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts related to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. (currently amended) A computer-implemented method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, the method comprising:
receiving, from a patient database (3), patient data (5) indicative of a health condition of the patient, the patient data (5) comprising sensor data (7) which has been generated by at least one sensor (8) for determining the health condition of the patient;
inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for selecting questions, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4); and
outputting at least one selected question or a list (13) of selected questions to be answered by the patient as output data (14) by the question selection algorithm (10),wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one of anamnesis data (16), diagnosis data (17), or medication data (19) of the patient.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) — generating data from a sensor and certain types of patient data (anamneses; diagnosis; or medication) — amount to no more than limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of performing the functions by the server merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 5-7 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
In relation to claim 10, the claim teaches sending a list of questions; and receiving a list of answers, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2-4, 9, 11-14: These claims specify generating data by a sensor; applying an artificial neural network; a data processing device and computer readable medium which thus does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 8: This claim generally recites training the question selection algorithm with input and output data which thus amount to mere instructions to apply an exception by invoking the computer as a tool OR reciting the idea of a solution (i.e. claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) or outcome (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1–2, 4, 6, and 10–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiao (2017/0103180) in view of Ram (2017/0301258).
As per claim 1, Jiao teaches a computer-implemented method for selecting questions to be answered by a patient, the method comprising:
receiving, from a patient database (3), patient data (5) indicative of a health condition of the patient, the patient data (5) comprising sensor data (7) which has been generated by at least one sensor (8) for determining the health condition of the patient (Jiao; Fig. 2; para. [0041] An activity monitoring device 191 can include resources such as Global Positioning System (GPS), motion sensors, and/or sensors (e.g., heartbeat monitor) to record and track user activity, as well as biometric information of the user in performing such activity; para. [0042] In some aspects, activity monitoring devices 191 can store their data in a device database 192, which can be managed by a computing platform);
inputting the patient data (5) as input data (9) into a question selection algorithm (10) configured for selecting questions, based on the input data (9), from a list (6) of predetermined questions stored in a question database (4) (Jiao Fig. 2; para. [0066] In some embodiments, some or all of these data gathered from activity monitoring devices 225 can be used by fielder 220 to choose which questions 209 are presented to a user);
outputting at least one selected question or a list (13) of selected questions to be answered by the patient as output data (14) by the question selection algorithm (10) (Jiao; para. [0064] The fielder 220 includes functionality to distribute the questions 209 to a control population of users through a population interface 222. For example, the fielder 220 can issue questions using the user interface 110 of an example system of FIG. 1).
Jiao does not expressly teach wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one of anamnesis data (16), diagnosis data (17), or medication data (19) of the patient. However this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Ram. In particular, Ram para. [0060] teaches assessing the user’s health and wellness condition through receiving the user’s self-reported information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the use of patient history and self-reported input to improve relevance and accuracy of the outputted list of questions.
As per claim 2, Jiao teaches the method of The method of wherein the sensor data (7) has been generated by at least one sensor (8) worn by the patient (Jiao; Fig. 2; para. [0041] An activity monitoring device 191 can include resources such as Global Positioning System (GPS), motion sensors, and/or sensors (e.g., heartbeat monitor) to record and track user activity, as well as biometric information of the user in performing such activity)
As per claim 4, Jiao teaches the method of claim 1,wherein the sensor data (7) indicates at least one of a heart rate, an electrocardiogram, a movement, a body temperature, a blood pressure level, a blood oxygen saturations or a blood glucose level of the patient (Jiao; para. [0041]).
As per claim 6, Jiao teaches the method of claim 1,wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises a current location of the patient (Jiao; para. [0065] Location data 227 can also be provided and includes where a user is located based on GPS data, which can be used in conjunction with other databases to determine, for example, if a user is in a restaurant, grocery store, etc.).
As per claim 10, Jiao teaches the computer-implemented method for conducting a patient survey, the method comprising:
generating a list (13) of selected questions with the method of claim 1 (Jiao; para. [0064] For example, the fielder 220 can issue questions using the user interface 110 of an example system of FIG. 1.);
sending the list (13) of selected questions to a user device (33) configured for presenting the selected questions to the patient (Jiao; para. [0064] For example, with further reference to an example of FIG. 1, questions 209 can be issued through gameplay of user interface 110) and
generating a list (21) of answers by processing an input of the patient with respect to the selected questions (Jiao; para. [0064] responses from various users can be recorded);
receiving the list (21) of answers from the user device (33) (Jiao; para. [0064], Fig. 1, 129 – “Responses”); and
storing the list (21) of answers in the patient database (3) (Jiao; para. [0045]; Fig. 1, 118 “Question REsonse Data”).
As per claim 11, Jiao teaches the data processing device (2) comprising a processor (11) configured for carrying out the method of claim 11 (Jiao; para. [0136]).
As per claim 12, Jiao teaches the patient survey system (1), comprising:
a patient database (3) which stores patient data (5) of different patients (Jiao; Fig. 1, 160 “User Health Database”);
a question database (4) which stores a list (6) of predetermined questions (Jiao; Fig. 1, 152 “Question Library”); and
the data processing device (2) of claim 12 (Jiao; para [0028] and Fig. 1).
As per claim 13, Jiao teaches a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor (11), cause the processor (11) to carry out the method of claim 11(Jiao; para. [0136]).
As per claim 14, Jiao teaches a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor (11), cause the processor (11) to carry out the method of claim 11. (Jiao; para. [0136]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiao (2017/0103180) in view of Ram (2017/0301258) in further view of Boscari (Boscari et. al. “Implantable and transcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring system: a randomized cross over trial comparing accuracy, efficacy and acceptance.” Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-021-01624-2. 2021).
As per claim 3, Jiao in view of Ram does not expressly teach the method of wherein the sensor (8) is either an implantable sensor, or part of an implantable medical device. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Boscari. In particular, Boscari pg. 2 teaches an implantable physiological sensor system (implantable CGM) that produces sensor data transmitted to external components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the implantable sensors taught in Boscari with the wearable sensors in Jiao with the motivation of providing higher compliance monitoring.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiao (2017/0103180) in view of Ram (2017/0301258) in further view of Sharifi (2018/0330802).
As per claim 5, Jiao in view of Ram does not expressly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the patient data (5) additionally comprises at least one answer or at least one list (21) of answers of the patient to items of at least one previous selected question or list (13) of selected questions, which has been previously output by the question selection algorithm (10). However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Sharifi. In particular, Sharifi para. [0027] teaches previously asked questions and corresponding answers are provided to the prediction model to train the prediction model for generating the sets of questions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the storing of previously answered questions to improve relevance and accuracy of the outputted list of questions.
Sharifi
AS per claim 8, Liao does not expressly teach method of claim 1,wherein the question selection algorithm (10) has been trained, with different sets of exemplary input data (30) and reference output data (31) for each set of exemplary input data (30), to generate the output data (14) from the input data (9). However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Sharifi. In particular, Sharifi para. [0027] teaches previously asked questions and corresponding answers are provided to the prediction model to train the prediction model for generating the sets of questions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the storing of previously answered questions to improve relevance and accuracy of the outputted list of questions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiao (2017/0103180) in view of Ram (2017/0301258) in further view of Schwoegler (6590529).
As per claim 7, Liao in view of Ram does not expressly teach the method of claim 6, further comprising one or both of:
retrieving weather data (23) from a weather database (24) based on the current location of the patient and inputting, additionally, the weather data (23) as the input data (9) into the question selection algorithm (10); or
retrieving news data (25) from a news database (26) based on the current location of the patient and inputting, additionally, the news data (25) as the input data (9) into the question selection algorithm (10).
However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Schwoegler. In particular, Schwoegler Col. 5, lines 1-10 ches determining current location of an electronic device and providing location-specific weather data/forecasts to the device. It would have been obvious to incorporate known location-based contextual feeds (weather) as taught by Schwoegler into the Liao system, as weather is a predictable contextual signals that affects patient state and the relevance of survey questions (i.e., using additional readily-available context inputs to improve selection relevance).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiao (2017/0103180) in view of Ram (2017/0301258) in further view of Sharifi (2018/0330802) in further view of Tierney (2022/0027362).
As per claim 9, Liao does not expressly teach the method of claim 8 wherein the question selection algorithm (10) is an artificial neural network (27). However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Tierney. IN particular, Tierney teaches analyzing large sets of disparate data and using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) as one type of machine learning platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ANN’s as taught by Tierney to the Liao system as the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The closest foreign prior art of record Ozgonul (WO2021061061) teaches at least one application run on the second electronic device and configured to provide an interface for the physician to view and answer questions or information sent by the user in audio, text, image or video format. The artificial intelligence algorithm that detects the messages appropriate to the profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 2/5/26