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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-8 are directed to a system for scoring and displaying a health metric of a first user, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 9-16 are directed to a method for scoring and displaying a health metric of a first user, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See id. Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 9, and 17 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is a system claim, while claim 9 covers the matching method claim and claim 17 covers the matching non-transitory computer-readable media claim. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites (and claims 1, 9, and 17 substantially recite) the following limitations:
A system for scoring and displaying a health metric of a first user, the system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
provide a gamified prompt to the first user via a display;
obtain a first measurement of the health metric of the first user from a measurement device, the measurement device configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user;
generate a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals, the first user being a member of the first population of individuals; and
provide the first normalized score to the display as game results.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a method for scoring a health metric of a first user, comprising: obtaining a first measurement of the health metric of the first user; and generating a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 1, 9, and 17 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 9, and 17 encompass concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a method for scoring a health metric of a first user, comprising: obtaining a first measurement of the health metric of the first user; and generating a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1, 9, and 17 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompasses a person mentally and/or manually observing, evaluating, making judgments, opinions related to: (1) scoring a health metric (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually score a health metric on a piece of paper); (2) obtaining a first measurement of the health metric of the first user (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally view a measurement of health metric and manually record it on a piece of paper); and (3) generating a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could manually generate a standardize score for the measured health metric based on a comparison with measurements from other users). Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 18-20 include limitations that further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 2-5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements, and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 6-8, 12, and 14 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
- For example, claims 2, 10, 15, 18, and 19 describe further mental concepts directed to obtaining an additional measurements of the health metric from the first user and a second user and generating additional normalized scores from the additional measurements. However, Examiner notes that claims 2, 10, 15, 18, and 19 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
- Next, claims 3, 13, and 20 describe further mental concepts directed to the health metric being an indicator of lung health. This is deemed to be part of the abstract mental process, because this limitation merely modifies the obtained data. However, Examiner notes that claims 2, 10, and 18 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
- Claims 6 and 14 describe further mental concepts directed to the game results being positive when the first normalized score exceeds a threshold and the threshold score corresponding to a determination that the health metrics are healthy. This is deemed to be part of the abstract mental process, because this limitation merely modifies the generated data (i.e., the score).
- Claim 7 includes further mental/manual steps for a game element may either (i) move at a speed; (ii) raise to a height; or move a distance, based on the first normalized score.
- Similarly, claims 8 and 12 include further mental/manual steps for the first population of individuals being based on at least one of age or sex.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG – Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)-(h).
In the present case, for independent claim 1, 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”):
A system (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) for scoring and displaying (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) a health metric of a first user, the system comprising processing circuitry configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
provide a gamified prompt to the first user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) via a display (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
obtain a first measurement of the health metric of the first user from a measurement device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the measurement device configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
generate a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals, the first user being a member of the first population of individuals; and
provide the first normalized score to the display as game results (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claims 1, 9, and 17 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic computer devices to perform the abstract mental process of a method for scoring a health metric of a first user, comprising: obtaining a first measurement of the health metric of the first user; and generating a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)-(h). 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 following are examples of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- Invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g. see, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV – similarly, the current invention invokes computers (i.e., the system; processing circuitry; display; measurement device; non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor) and other machinery to perform the existing process of obtaining and scoring a health metric; and
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g. see, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank – similarly, the current invention merely requires the non-transitory computer-readable media having the computer-executable instructions to ultimately perform the abstract mental process of obtaining and scoring a health metric, as described in claim 1, 9, and 17.
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Examples of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the steps directed to: “providing a gamified prompt to the first user via a display”, described in claim 1; and “providing the first normalized score to the display as game results”, described in claims 1, 7, and 8”, are deemed to be necessary data gathering/outputting, because these steps does not add a meaningful limit to the process of obtaining and scoring the health metric.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 6-8, 12, and 14 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea (or those additional elements which were already identified and analyzed in claims 1 and 9), described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
wherein a second user is a member of a second population of individuals; and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a second normalized score by normalizing a second measurement of the health metric of the second user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of the second population of individuals; and
provide the second normalized score to the display as game results (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 2 and similarly in claims 10 and 18);
wherein the measurement device is a spirometer device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the health metric is a metric indicating lung health (as described in claims 3, 13, and 20);
wherein the gamified prompt is a prompt for the first user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), wherein the measurement device obtains the first measurement of the health metric of the first user as the first user performs the action (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 4);
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed in order to achieve the game objective (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 5);
wherein the first normalized score and the second normalized score are simultaneously displayed on the display as game results (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 11 and 16);
obtaining a second measurement of the health metric of the first user from the measurement device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); generating a second normalized score by normalizing the second measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to the plurality of measurements of the health metric of the first population of individuals; and providing the second normalized score as game results to the display (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 15); and
obtain a third measurement of the health metric of the first user from the measurement device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); generate a third normalized score by normalizing the third measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to the plurality of measurements of the health metric of the first population of individuals; and provide the third normalized score as game results to the display (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (as described in claim 19).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1-5, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-20: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-20 amount to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-20, as recited, the system; processing circuitry; display; measurement device; non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions; at least one processor; spirometer device; and the steps directed to: “displaying”; “providing a gamified prompt to the first user”; “the measurement device configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user”; “providing the first normalized score to the display as game results”; “providing the second normalized score to the display as game results”; “wherein the gamified prompt is a prompt for the first user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective”; “wherein the measurement device obtains the first measurement of the health metric of the first user as the first user performs the action”; “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed in order to achieve the game objective”; “wherein the first normalized score and the second normalized score are simultaneously displayed on the display as game result”; “providing the second normalized score as game results to the display”; and “providing the third normalized score as game results to the display”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the system; processing circuitry; display; measurement device; non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions; at least one processor; spirometer device; and the steps directed to: “the measurement device configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user”; “wherein the measurement device obtains the first measurement of the health metric of the first user as the first user performs the action”; “wherein the first normalized score and the second normalized score are simultaneously displayed on the display as game result”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that: (1) “the exemplary system for implementing the overall system or portions of the embodiments might include general-purpose computing devices in the form of computers, including a processing unit, a system memory, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit” (see Applicant’s specification as filed on October 22, 2024, paragraph [0110]); and (2) “the non-volatile media may take the form of ROM, flash memory (e.g., flash memory such as NAND, 3D NAND, NOR, 3D NOR),
EEPROM, MRAM, magnetic storage, hard discs, optical discs, etc.” (see Applicant’s specification as filed on October 22, 2024, paragraph [0110]). These descriptions in the specification describe these additional elements as basic computer components and functions, such as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. Therefore, the Examiner submits that these computer components and functions represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- Regarding the steps directed to: “displaying”; “providing a gamified prompt to the first user”; “providing the first normalized score to the display as game results”; “providing the second normalized score to the display as game results”; “wherein the gamified prompt is a prompt for the first user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective”; “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed in order to achieve the game objective”; “providing the second normalized score as game results to the display”; and “providing the third normalized score as game results to the display” - The following represents an example that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “displaying”; “providing a gamified prompt to the first user”; “providing the first normalized score to the display as game results”; “providing the second normalized score to the display as game results”; “wherein the gamified prompt is a prompt for the first user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective”; “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed in order to achieve the game objective”; “providing the second normalized score as game results to the display”; and “providing the third normalized score as game results to the display”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere transmission of various data over a network (i.e., providing prompts and displaying the normalized scores, are the equivalent of receiving and transmitting data over a network).
Therefore, the additional elements described in claims 1-20 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Elefteriades et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0303930); in view of
- Ohnemus et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0019375).
Regarding claim 1,
- Elefteriades et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0303930) teaches:
- a system for scoring and displaying a health metric of first user, comprising processing circuitry configured to (as described in claim 1) (Elefteriades, paragraphs [0003], [0031], and [0033]; Paragraph [0031] teaches an incentive spirometer system comprising all the interface electronics and airflow transducer (i.e., the system comprises processing circuitry). Paragraph [0003] teaches a described method of Incentive Spirometry which details how to utilize a personal computer to provide accurate visual feedback (i.e., displaying the health metric of a first user) as well as a means of tailoring a patient-specific Incentive Spirometry routine, and providing a quantitative method of recording data. Paragraph [0033] teaches that when a patient successfully inhales at the proper rate, the space ship will rise to position itself between the upper 20 and lower 30 red lines and a scoring indication is displayed at the bottom of the screen (i.e., the system scores the health metric of the first user).):
- provide a gamified prompt to the first user via a display (as described in claim 1) (Elefteriades, paragraph [0034]; Paragraph [0034] teaches that FIG. 6 shows a screenshot of a video monitor (i.e., a gamified prompt via a display) running the game-based Incentive Spirometer. Paragraph [0033] generally teaches that the Incentive Spirometer utilizes a little "space ship" 40 as an icon chosen to show when the patient successfully inhales and exhales at a proper rate (the space ship will rise to position itself between the upper 20 and lower 30 red lines) (i.e., the system provides a gamified prompt to the first user via a display).):
- a method for scoring and displaying a health metric of a first user, the method comprising (as described in claim 9) (Elefteriades, paragraph [0003]; Paragraph [0003] teaches a described method of Incentive Spirometry which details how to utilize a personal computer to provide accurate visual feedback (i.e., displaying the health metric of a first user) as well as a means of tailoring a patient-specific Incentive Spirometry routine, and providing a quantitative method of recording data. Paragraph [0033] teaches that when a patient successfully inhales at the proper rate, the space ship will rise to position itself between the upper 20 and lower 30 red lines and a scoring indication is displayed at the bottom of the screen (i.e., the method scores the health metric of the first user).):
- a non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied therein that (Elefteriades, paragraph [0032]; Paragraph [0032] teaches that the incentive spirometer method may include using any contemporary laptop or tower computer provided it has at least one USB port and the proprietary software required for use with the Incentive Spirometer (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions), when executed by at least one processor (Elefteriades, paragraph [0032]; Paragraph [0032] teaches that the proprietary software can be preloaded onto a personal computer.), causes the at least one processor to (as described in claim 17):
- obtaining a first measurement of the health metric of a first user from a measurement device, the measurement device configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user (as described in claims 1, 9, and 17) (Elefteriades, paragraph [0015]; Paragraph [0015] teaches that the described invention utilizes the combination of a personal computer and an appropriate airflow sensor to transform the patient’s spirometric data (i.e., examples of first measurement of the health metric of a first user from a measurement device) into a visual representation on a personal computers screen. Paragraph [0030] teaches that the airflow transducer 20 has the capability to convert airflow (i.e., the measurement device is configured to obtain the first measurement of the health metric of the first user) into an analog voltage output.).
…
…
- While Elefteriades discloses generating a score for the first measurement of the health metric and providing the score to the display as game results (see Elefteriades, paragraphs [0033] and [0034] - where the system scores and displays a score value for successful inhales of the patient, and FIGS. 5 and 6 - Reference Number 50), Elefteriades might not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of health data acquisition systems and methods, Ohnemus et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0019375) teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions which cause at least one processor to:
- generate a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals, the first user being a member of the first population of individuals (as described in claims 1, 9, and 17) (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0065] and [0172]; Paragraph [0065] teaches that the individual weighted scores, when summed and linearly normalized into 0-1, 1,000 interval, define the overall LifeStyle Score as part of the Health Score (i.e., generating a first normalized score by normalizing the first measurement of the health metric of the first user). Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] of others in the group and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group (i.e., the health metric is relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals where the first user is a member of the first population of individuals).); and
- providing the first normalized score as game results to the first user via a display (as described in claims 1, 9, and 17) (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0045], [0132], and [0172]; Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] (i.e., providing the first normalized score as game results to the first user via a display) and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group. Paragraph [0132] generally teaches that users can compete against each other through public challenges and/or with their immediate friends (i.e., the scores can be shared as game results to the first user via the display). Paragraph [0045] teaches that these features are beneficial for providing users with health-related feedback information which can help to improve the user’s health).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of health data acquisition systems and methods at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) generating a normalized score for a health metric of a first user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals, and (ii) provide the normalized score as game results on a display, as taught by Ohnemus, in order to provide users with health-related feedback information relative to a population which can help to improve the user’s health. See Ohnemus, paragraph [0045]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on); claim 9 (which claim 10 depends on); and claim 17 (which claim 18 depends on), as described above.
- Ohnemus further teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein:
- a second user is a member of a second population of individuals (as described in claims 2, 10, and 18) (Ohnemus, paragraph [0136]; Paragraph [0136] teaches that the server can be configured to establish groups of users (i.e., the second user may be a member of a second population of individuals).);
- generate a second normalized score by normalizing a second measurement of the health metric of the second user relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of the second population of individuals (as described in claims 2, 10, and 18) (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0065] and [0172]; Paragraph [0065] teaches that the individual weighted scores, when summed and linearly normalized into 0-1, 1,000 interval, define the overall LifeStyle Score as part of the Health Score (i.e., this paragraph is also interpreted as generating a second normalized score by normalizing the second measurement of the health metric of the second user, because there are different weighted scores for each user). Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] of others in the group and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group (i.e., the health metric is relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a second population of individuals where the second user is a member of the second population of individuals).); and
- provide the second normalized score to the display as game results (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0045], [0132], and [0172]; Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] (i.e., this paragraph also discloses providing the second normalized score to the display as game results, because different users are able to see their scores and the scores of other individuals) and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group.).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 20,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on); claim 9 (which claim 13 depends on); and claim 17 (which claim 20 depends on), as described above.
- Elefteriades further teaches a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein:
- the measurement device is a spirometer device (Elefteriades, paragraph [0023] and FIG. 2; Paragraph [0023] teaches that the described invention utilizes an incentive spirometer (see Figure 2 for details of a block diagram of the incentive spirometer).), and the health metric is a metric indicating a lung health (as described in claims 3, 13, and 20) (Elefteriades, paragraph [0029]; Paragraph [0029] teaches that the described invention has the ability to record a baseline lung volume before surgery, and use this stored patient-specific baseline during the post-operative period to give a more accurate assessment of complete inhalation (i.e., the health metric is a metric indicating a lung health, where the assessment of complete inhalation is an example of a metric that indicates a lung health).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 4,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 4 depends on), as described above.
- Ohnemus further teaches a system, wherein:
- the gamified prompt is a prompt for the first user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective, wherein the measurement device obtains the first measurement of the health metric of the first user as the first user performs the action (Ohnemus, paragraph [0159]; Paragraph [0159] teaches that a data collection module executing on the processor can prompt a user to provide health related data corresponding to a number of parameters (i.e., the gamified prompt is a prompt for the user to perform an action in order to achieve a game objective).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 5,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of: claim 4 (which claim 5 depends on), as described above.
- Ohnemus further teaches a system, wherein:
- the processing circuitry is configured to provide the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed in order to achieve the game objective (Ohnemus, paragraph [0180]; Paragraph [0180] teaches that the example displayed in FIG. 17, a Health Score of 581 is shown and that is calculated as a function of variables (i.e., providing the first normalized score to the display as a result of the action performed by the user to achieve the game objective).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 7,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 7 depends on), as described above.
- Elefteriades further teaches a system, wherein:
- wherein the game results include a game element that is operated to at least one of move at a speed based on the first normalized score, raise to a height based on the first normalized score, or move a distance based on the first normalized score (Elefteriades, paragraph [0020]; Paragraph [0020] teaches that as more breath is exhaled or inhaled, the space ship will rise to the top of the screen; and as less breath is exhaled or inhaled, the space ship sinks to a lower position on the screen (i.e., the game results include a game element that is operated to raise a height based on the first score).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 11,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 10 (which claim 11 depends on), as described above.
- Ohnemus further teaches a method, wherein:
- the first normalized score and the second normalized score are simultaneously displayed on the display as game results (Ohnemus, paragraph [0186]; Paragraph [0186] teaches that the health score of the user may be displayed (i.e., the first normalized score is displayed) along with comparative health scores for a plurality of people who are members of a company or from various departments within a company (i.e., the second normalized scores may be displayed simultaneously on the display the first normalized score).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 15 and 19,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of: claim 9 (which claim 15 depends on) and claim 18 (which claim 19 depends on), as described above.
- Elefteriades further teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein:
- obtaining a second measurement of the health metric of the first user from the measurement device (as described in claim 15); and obtaining a third measurement of the health metric of the first user from the measurement device (as described in claim 19) (Elefteriades, paragraph [0034]; Paragraph [0034] generally teaches that patient is recorded while inhaling and exhaling over a period of time to make a baseline determination. Likewise, as the person inhales, the time and rate is logged onto the personal computer’s hard drive (i.e., the system obtains multiple measurements of the health metric, including a second measurement and a third measurement of the health metric of the first user from the measurement device).).
…
…
- Ohnemus further teaches a method, wherein:
- generating a second normalized score by normalizing the second measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to the plurality of measurements of the health metric of the first population of individuals (as described in claim 15); and generating a third normalized score by normalizing the third measurement of the health metric of the first user relative to the plurality of measurements of the health metric of the first population of individuals (as described in claim 19) (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0065] and [0172]; Paragraph [0065] teaches that the individual weighted scores, when summed and linearly normalized into 0-1, 1,000 interval, define the overall LifeStyle Score as part of the Health Score (i.e., this paragraph is also interpreted as generating a second and third normalized score by normalizing the second and third measurement of the health metric of the first user, because there are different weighted scores for each user). Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] of others in the group and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group (i.e., the health metric is relative to a plurality of measurements of the health metric of a first population of individuals).); and
- providing the second normalized score as game results to the display (as described in claim 15); and providing the third normalized score as game results to the display (as described in claim 19) (Ohnemus, paragraphs [0045], [0132], and [0172]; Paragraph [0172] teaches that the user can view the Health Score information [which includes the normalized LifeStyle Score] (i.e., this paragraph is also interpreted as providing the second and third normalized scores to the display as game results, because different users are able to see their scores and the scores of other individuals) and compare his or her overall health with the health of others in the group.).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 16,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 15 (which claim 16 depends on), as described above.
- Ohnemus further teaches a method, wherein:
- the first normalized score and the second normalized score are simultaneously displayed on the display as game results (Ohnemus, paragraph [0186]; Paragraph [0186] teaches that the health score of the user may be displayed (i.e., the first normalized score is displayed) along with comparative health scores for a plurality of people who are members of a company or from various departments within a company (i.e., the second normalized scores may be displayed simultaneously on the display the first normalized score).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, in view of Ohnemus, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- The combination of: Elefteriades et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0303930), as modified in view of: Ohnemus et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0019375), as applied to claims 4 and 9 above, and further in view of:
- Ronen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0074090).
Regarding claims 6 and 14,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of: claim 4 (which claim 6 depends on) and claim 9 (which claim 14 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, does not explicitly teach, however in analogous art of systems and methods for assessing patient data, Ronen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0074090) further teaches a system and method, wherein:
- the game results are positive when the first normalized score exceeds a threshold score, the threshold score corresponding with health metrics that are determined to be healthy (as described in claims 6 and 14) (Ronen, paragraph [0242]; Paragraph [0242] teaches that healthy users may be determined based on their health score exceeding a defined threshold for some period of time (i.e., determining that the user is health based on the score exceeding a threshold score). In some embodiments, the threshold may be a literal score value. Paragraph [0242] teaches that this feature is beneficial for determining one or more healthy users.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for assessing patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, to incorporate a step and feature directed to providing a threshold score for determining when the normalized score exceeds the threshold score, as taught by Ronen, in order to determine one or more healthy users. See Ronen, paragraph [0242]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- The combination of: Elefteriades et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0303930), as modified in view of: Ohnemus et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0019375), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of:
- Mollicone et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0132029).
Regarding claim 8,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 8 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, does not explicitly teach, however in analogous art of systems and methods for assessing patient data, Mollicone et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0132029) further teaches a system, wherein:
- the first population of individuals is based on at least one of age or sex (Mollicone, paragraphs [0041] and [0042]; Paragraph [0042] generally teaches that the subjects can be grouped into a population and/or subpopulation, where it may be necessary to specify a particular target age, target age range, or other demographic characteristics such as gender (i.e., the population of individuals may be based on age or sex). Paragraph [0041] teaches that this feature is beneficial for forming common ground upon which a comparison of otherwise disparate scores may be compared.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for assessing patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, to incorporate a step and feature directed to separating users into population groups based on age and/or sex, as taught by Mollicone, in order to form common ground upon which a comparison of otherwise disparate scores may be compared. See Mollicone, paragraph [0041]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claim 12,
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, teaches the limitations of claim 10 (which claim 12 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, does not explicitly teach, however in analogous art of systems and methods for assessing patient data, Mollicone et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0132029) further teaches a method, wherein:
- the first population of individuals and the second population of individuals are based on at least one of age or sex (Mollicone, paragraphs [0041] and [0042]; Paragraph [0042] generally teaches that the subjects can be grouped into a population and/or subpopulation, where it may be necessary to specify a particular target age, target age range, or other demographic characteristics such as gender (i.e., both the first population of individuals and the second population of individuals are based on age or sex). Paragraph [0041] teaches that this feature is beneficial for forming common ground upon which a comparison of otherwise disparate scores may be compared.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for assessing patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the incentive spirometer system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Elefteriades, as modified in view of Ohnemus, to incorporate a step and feature directed to separating users into population groups based on age and/or sex, as taught by Mollicone, in order to form common ground upon which a comparison of otherwise disparate scores may be compared. See Mollicone, paragraph [0041]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights