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 the amendment filed 1/15/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, and 19 have been amended. Claims 17-18 have been canceled. Claims 20-22 have been added. Claims 1-16 and 20-22 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 and 20-22 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 7 of the response that claim 1 recites “different aspects of a device performing different elements of the method, including a tracker module that receives user-specific, timeseries data, including mood event data from an external mood assessment tool, a search module that executes a correlation algorithm that determines correlations between the user's diet and mood event information as well as selects a content unit from a database of digestive health information based on the correlation exceeding a threshold, and a user interface that sends the selected content unit to the user in response to receiving the user-specific, timeseries data,” and that these “[t]hese limitations provide additional, technical features that recite not merely managing user behavior and assessing data, but also provide a "technical capacity to identify triggers from the captured data and ultimately return to the user helpful, relevant content without requiring the user to perform a specific search", which provides "a beneficial technological advance in computer information systems" as recited in the Specification.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the rejection under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, the recited tracker module, search module, and user interface only amount to mere instructions to implement the corresponding data processing and display functions using computing elements as tools. Each module is only recited at a high level of generality in that the corresponding functions are recited as performed by each of the modules and the data is sent “via” the user interface. The modules and interface are each disclosed as parts of a software application operating on a smartphone or server. While Applicant cites to paragraph 73 as describing “additional technical features,” paragraph 73 only describes functions falling within the scope of the abstract idea, such as identifying triggers from the captured data and returning relevant content, as well as intended benefits also ascribable to the limitations falling within the scope of the abstract idea. The use of computing elements such as software or processing devices is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues on page 8 that claim 1 recites an improvement in the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, based on the recitation of the tracker module, user-specific search module, and user interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the claim limitations “address known technical challenges of computer information systems that require relevant tem1s to be identified within a user's experience that may not be available as an appropriate and specific textual input,” citing again to paragraph 73 describing the system providing content relevant to a user’s symptom triggers and helpful education. However, as noted above the argued improvements are described as resulting from elements falling within the scope of the abstract idea itself, and not from the additional elements recited in the claims. The use of software modules and generic computer hardware such as interfaces, processors, and memory merely to implement functions within the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant presents the same arguments with respect to Step 2B that claim 1 recites an improvement in the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, based on the recitation of the tracker module, user-specific search module, and user interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees on the same grounds set out above. As previously stated, the use of software modules and generic computer hardware such as interfaces, processors, and memory merely to implement functions within the abstract idea only constitutes instructions to implement the judicial exception, and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
A. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, and 16-19 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in-part as explained below. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529).
Applicant argues starting on page 10 that Kohn does not disclose “user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood events based on results from an external mood assessment tool ...” (emphasis in original), and that “Kohn's disclosure of a question regarding how stressed a user felt on a particular day on a scale of zero to five is not the same as an external mood assessment tool as recited in amended claim 1” on the basis that “[a] question cannot reasonably be interpreted as an external mood assessment tool because it is neither a tool nor external.” Examiner agrees specifically with respect to the mood assessment tool of Kohn being an external mood assessment tool, and Paull is now relied upon to teach this element. Examiner respectfully disagrees however with Applicant’s assertion that Kohn’s disclosure of a question asking the user to enter their stress level does not constitute a mood assessment tool. Applicant does not provide further support for the assertion that such a question does not constitute a “tool,” and Applicant’s disclosure describes collecting mood information using questions presented to a patient (see e.g. paragraphs 51 and 53 of Applicant’s specification as filed). Examiner likewise respectfully disagrees that “as Kohn does not teach the same mood events as recited in claim 1, it inherently also does not teach executing a correlation algorithm to “determine a correlation in the received data between i) information from the user-recorded diet and ii) mood events information from the user-recorded diarrhea symptoms”” (emphasis in original). As explained above, Examiner maintains that Kohn teaches collecting time series data regarding mood events, and further discloses both collecting user-recorded diarrhea symptoms and correlating this data with the mood events information from the diarrhea symptoms.
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 1-16 and 20-22 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 and 19-20 are drawn to a method, claim 21 is drawn to a system, and claim 22 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of
receiving user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood events based on results from an external mood assessment tool, and diarrhea symptoms;
executing a correlation algorithm to determine a correlation in the received data between i) information from the user-recorded diet and ii) mood events information from the user-recorded diarrhea symptoms;
selecting a content unit based on the determined correlation exceeding a threshold, the content unit selected from a set digestive health information; and
sending the selected content unit to the user responsive to receiving the user-specific, timeseries data.
The above steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and therefore fall within the scope of a method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of identifying correlations between timeseries data about an individual’s diet, mood events, and diarrhea symptoms and using those relationships to select and provide content to the user. This process constitutes a form of management of the user’s behavior via the provided content and could also be performed by a clinician assessing the user’s diarrhea and providing them with information concerning dietary or emotional triggers.
Independent claims 21 and 22 recite similar limitations and also recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 recites additional elements of a) a tracker module used to receive the timeseries data, b) a user-specific search module used to determine the correlation in the received data and select the content unit, c) a database recited as storing the digestive health information, and d) a user interface used to provide the selected content to the user.
Claim 21 recites additional elements of a) a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and recited as implementing the tracker module and user-specific search module, b) a tracker module used to receive the timeseries data, c) a user-specific search module used to determine the correlation in the received data and select the content unit, d) a database recited as storing the digestive health information, and e) a user interface used to provide the selected content to the user.
Claim 22 recites additional elements of a) one or more non-transitory computer readable media used to store instructions, and b) a processor recited as executing the instructions to perform the subsequent steps.
Figures 1A and 1B, [21]-[23], and [29]-[32] describe a system including a plurality of computing devices including smartphones, personal computers, servers, and others. The computing devices are disclosed as devices including a processor, disclosed as a general-purpose processor, and a memory disclosed as “any computing hardware suitable for storing information in connection with the processor 122.” For example, paragraph 31 describes the processor as encompassing general purpose processors as well as other processing devices such as ASICs, FPGAs, and microprocessors, as well as that “[t]he processor 122 may be configured, for example configured with application software via computer readable code, to perform the functions of the computers disclosed herein.” The memory, processor, and non-transitory computer readable media are therefore construed as encompassing generic computer hardware.
Paragraph 36 further states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.” Paragraphs 55 and 64 further describe the digestive health content datastore in terms of its function of storing content units. Each of the user tracker module, user-specific search module, and database are therefore construed as encompassing generic computer storage, software, and processing elements.
Paragraph 34 describes a user I/O interface as including “hardware such as a speaker/microphone, a physical keypad, a virtual keypad, a display, a touch display, a mouse, indicators lights, and the like,” and where “[f]or example, the smartphone 106 may include a touch display enabling the user 102 to interact with a digital health application, to receive information from the user 102 and to provide resultant content to the user 102.” Figures 5-8C show various graphical user interfaces used to interact with a patient and present information. The user interface is therefore construed as encompassing generic graphical user interfaces and screens.
The above elements only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. For example, each of the memory, processor, database, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality as used to store data and perform data processing functions, and are disclosed broadly as encompassing generic forms of computer hardware. The tracker module and user-specific search module are similarly only recited at a high level of generality as used to perform respective data processing functions, and are disclosed as components of a software application. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 21, and 22 only recite the memory, processor, tracker module, user-specific search module, database, user interface, and one or more non-transitory computer readable media as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claim 2 recites converting the user-recorded diet to digestive health factors, wherein information from the user-recorded diet and mood event comprises digestive health factors, and wherein the mood assessment tool is selected from a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Patient Health Ouestionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), or Profile of Mood States (POMS). These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a user profile module used to perform the function of converting the user-recorded diet to digestive health factors.
Paragraph 36 states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.” The user profile module is therefore construed as encompassing a computer software application.
The user profile module only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The user profile module is recited at a high level of generality as used to convert the user-recorded diet to digestive health factors, and is disclosed broadly as a component of a software application. The user profile module is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the correlation identifies at least a food, factor, or a mood event, that correlates with greater onset of diarrhea symptoms. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 4 recites wherein the correlation identifies at least one of a food, a factor, a mood event, or a timing that correlates with lesser onset of diarrhea symptoms. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 5 recites wherein the content unit is selected from a plurality of content units, wherein each of the plurality of content units is indexed according to at least one of symptom level, food, factor, mood event, or timing, and wherein the content unit is selected based on a match between the content unit's index and the determined correlation. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of the database as used to store the plurality of content units.
Paragraph 36 states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.” Paragraphs 55 and 64 further describe the digestive health content datastore in terms of its function of storing content units. The database is therefore construed as encompassing generic computer storage elements.
The recited database only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The database is recited at a high level of generality as used to store the content units, and is only disclosed broadly as software and in the context of its function of storing data. The database is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the content unit is selected from the plurality of content units by using a human readable summary of the correlation as a search query. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 7 recites wherein the plurality of content units comprises a private library of digestive health content. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of a) the database as used to store the plurality of content units, and b) the library of digestive health content being “formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery.”
Paragraph 36 states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.” Paragraphs 55 and 64 further describe the digestive health content datastore in terms of its function of storing content units. The database is therefore construed as encompassing generic computer storage elements.
Paragraph 91 of the specification reflects the language of the claims in describing the library of digestive health content as formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery. Figure 8A-D show a series of screens described in paragraphs 63-66 as displaying content units on a smartphone. The library of digestive health content being formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery is therefore disclosed as the content being transmissible to a smartphone application.
The recited database and the health content being formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery only amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The database is recited at a high level of generality as used to store the content units, and only disclosed broadly as software and in the context of its function of storing data, while the formatting is only recited at a high level of generality as describing its intended purpose, i.e. allowing delivery to a smartphone app, and is not further limited in the disclosure. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites wherein the content unit comprises a human readable summary of the user-recorded diet and mood event information that represents a source of the correlation. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 9 recites receiving registration data from the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of the tracker module as used to receive the registration data.
Paragraph 36 states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.” The tracker module is therefore construed as encompassing a computer software application.
The recited tracker module only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The tracker module is recited at a high level of generality as used to receive the registration data, and is disclosed broadly as a component of a software application. The tracker module is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to a practical application.
Claim 10 recites tracking performance following delivery of the content unit and generating data to show efficacy of the content delivery. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 11 recites wherein content delivery is triggered based on a correlation metric exceeding the threshold. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 12 recites wherein the information from the user-recorded diet comprises food characteristics, as determined though a database interaction, of specific food items entered by the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 13 recites collecting a goal from the user and presenting goal tracking information based on how well the user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood event, and diarrhea symptom track to the goal. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 14 recites collecting a goal from the user and presenting, to the user, educational content based on the goal. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 15 recites presenting the user with public restroom geo-location data. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of a) an interface used to present the public restroom location information, and b) a database recited as storing the data.
Paragraph 82 reflects the language of the claim, stating that “[f]or example, the supplemental interactions may include presenting the user with an interface to a public restroom geo-location database.” No further description is provided of either the interface itself or the database. The interface is therefore construed as a general user interface and the database is construed as encompassing a generic computer database.
These elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The interface itself is only recited at a high level of generality as presented to the user while the database is likewise only recited at a high level of generality as containing the public restroom geo-location data. This element is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites providing the selected content unit to the user. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 16 further recites the additional elements of providing the content by displaying it on a user input-output interface.
Paragraph 34 describes a user I/O interface as including “hardware such as a speaker/microphone, a physical keypad, a virtual keypad, a display, a touch display, a mouse, indicators lights, and the like,” and where “[f]or example, the smartphone 106 may include a touch display enabling the user 102 to interact with a digital health application, to receive information from the user 102 and to provide resultant content to the user 102.” The input-output interface is therefore construed as encompassing generic input-output interfaces such as touchscreens.
This element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The user input-output interface is only recited at a high level of generality as used to display the content unit and is disclosed as encompassing generic computer hardware.
The function of displaying the selected content further amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of necessary data outputting following performance of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this function amounts to well-understood routine and conventional activity given that it is recited at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of the tracker module, the user-specific search module, and the user interface implemented as aspects of a smart phone application or a server application.
Figures 1A and 1B, [21]-[23], and [29]-[32] further describe a system including a plurality of computing devices including smartphones, personal computers, servers, and others.
Paragraph 36 states that “[t]he application structure may include functional elements such as a user profile module 200, a tracker module 202, a user-specific search module 204, and digestive health content datastore 206.”
Figures 5-8C show various graphical user interfaces used to interact with a patient and present information. The user interface is therefore construed as encompassing generic graphical user interfaces and screens.
The tracker module, user-specific search module, user interface, and smartphone and server applications are therefore construed as encompassing computer software applications.
The above elements only amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. Each of the modules and the smartphone and server application are expressly recited, and disclosed, as elements of software applications operating on computing devices. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to a practical application.
Claim 20 recites wherein determining the correlation includes determining at least one of a Pearson correlation coefficient, a Spearman rank correlation, Kendall's Tau, one or more covariances, determining a distance correlation, performing a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), performing a Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), performing a time series analysis. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above. These limitations also constitute forms of mathematical concepts, and also fall within the scope of an abstract idea on that basis.
Claim 20 further recites the additional element of a machine learning algorithm as used to determine the correlation.
Paragraph 57 states that the correlation analysis may include employing a machine learning algorithm, listing regression models, decision trees, and neural networks as examples. No further disclosure of machine learning algorithms or their use is provided however.
The recited machine learning algorithm only amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The machine learning algorithm is only recited at a high level of generality as an algorithm which may be used as part of determining the correlation and only disclosed broadly in the specification. The machine learning algorithm is therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to a practical application.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed 1/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420142) in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529).
With respect to claim 1, Kohn discloses the claimed computer-implemented method for selecting content for delivery to a user, the method comprising:
receiving, by a tracker module, user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood events based on results from a mood assessment tool, and diarrhea symptoms ([27]-[29], [35], [78], [80], and [83] describe a digestive disorder-tracking app having an input module through which a user enters nutrition information, lifestyle information, and symptom information; [36]-[41] describe the nutrition information including diet information such as servings of fruit, grains, and other dietary categories; [43] and [47] describe the lifestyle information including the user’s stress level, i.e. mood; [49], [61], and [64] describe the symptom information including diarrhea);
executing, by a user-specific search module, a correlation algorithm to determine a correlation in the received data between i) information from the user-recorded diet and ii) mood events information from the user-recorded diarrhea symptoms ([78]-[82] and [101] describe the application analyzing the inputted nutritional, dietary, and moods related to diarrhea, and symptom data to identify elements are correlated to an increase in symptoms);
selecting, by the user-specific search module, a content unit based on the determined correlation exceeding a threshold, the content unit selected from a database of digestive health information ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation and selecting nutritional, medication, or lifestyle changes from a database. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “content unit” encompasses any item or items of information); and
sending, via a user interface, the selected content unit to the user responsive to receiving the user-specific, timeseries data ([28], [101], [102], and [104] describe outputting and displaying the determined factors to the user as potential causes of their symptoms);
but does not expressly disclose:
the mood assessment tool being an “external” mood assessment tool.
However, Paull teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events ([150]-[151], [247], [248], [316], and [320] describe using mood assessment tools, such as PHQ-9 and GAD-7, to periodically collect input from the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kohn to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events as taught by Paull since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn already discloses using a mood assessment tool to collect the mood event timeseries data, and doing so using an external mood assessment tool as taught by Paull would serve that same function in Kohn, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 3, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein the correlation identifies at least a food, factor, or a mood event, that correlates with greater onset of diarrhea symptoms ([79]-[82] and [101] describe analyzing the inputted nutritional, dietary, and symptom data to identify elements are correlated to an increase in symptoms; [61] and [64] describe the symptoms as including diarrhea while [80] specifies that the correlations with diet and lifestyle are performed for each symptom).
With respect to claim 8, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein the content unit comprises a human readable summary of the user-recorded diet and mood information that represents a source of the correlation ([28], [80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining correlated factors and displaying them to the user to inform the user of those factors, i.e. the output is readable by a human).
With respect to claim 9, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
receiving, by the tracker module, registration data from the user ([34] and [103] describe the application receiving account sign up, i.e. registration, information from the user).
With respect to claim 11, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein content delivery is triggered based on a correlation metric exceeding the threshold ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation such as greater than 60%).
With respect to claim 14, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose collecting a goal from the user and presenting, to the user, educational content based on the goal.
However, Paull teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect a goal from the user and present educational content to the user based on the goal ([143] and [148] describe receiving user-identified goals; [180], [190], [300], and [312] describe providing educational and training material to the user based on the user’s goals).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to collect a goal from the user and present educational content to the user based on the goal as taught by Paull since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teach presenting content to a user to improve the user’s condition, and collecting a goal from the user and presenting educational content to the user based on the goal as taught by Paull would serve that same function in the combination of Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 16, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
displaying the selected content unit on a user input-output interface ([28], [101], [102], and [104] describe outputting and displaying the determined factors to the user on phone interfaces such as touchscreens).
With respect to claim 19, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein the tracker module, the user-specific search module, and the user interface are implemented as aspects of a smart phone application or a server application (Claim 1, Figures 1 and 2, [28], [34], and [103] describe the functions being performed using applications and modules operating on devices such as mobile phones in conjunction with a server).
With respect to claim 20, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein determining the correlation includes determining at least one of a Pearson correlation coefficient, a Spearman rank correlation, Kendall's Tau, one or more covariances, determining a distance correlation, performing a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), performing a Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), performing a time series analysis, or employing a machine learning (ML) algorithm (Claim 8, [78]-[82], [85], and [88] describe the use of various machine learning algorithms, including regression algorithms; [83] and [84] describe the use of time series analysis; [95]-[98] describe using distance calculations for correlation).
With respect to claim 21, Kohn discloses the claimed system comprising:
a memory and a processor coupled to the memory ([28], [34], and [103] describe a computer application running on devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops, i.e. devices incorporating memory and processors coupled to the memory);
a tracker module implemented on the processor and configured to receive user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood events based on results from an mood assessment tool, and diarrhea symptoms ([27]-[29], [35], [78], [80], and [83] describe a digestive disorder-tracking app having an input module through which a user enters nutrition information, lifestyle information, and symptom information; [36]-[41] describe the nutrition information including diet information such as servings of fruit, grains, and other dietary categories; [43] and [47] describe the lifestyle information including the user’s stress level, i.e. mood; [49], [61], and [64] describe the symptom information including diarrhea);
a user-specific search module implemented on the processor ([28], [34], and [103] describe a computer application running on devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops) and configured to:
execute a correlation algorithm to determine a correlation in the received data between i) information from the user-recorded diet and ii) mood events information from the user-recorded diarrhea symptoms ([78]-[82] and [101] describe the application analyzing the inputted nutritional, dietary, and moods related to diarrhea, and symptom data to identify elements are correlated to an increase in symptoms), and
select, by the user-specific search module, a content unit based on the determined correlation exceeding a threshold, the content unit selected from a database of digestive health information ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation and selecting nutritional, medication, or lifestyle changes from a database. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “content unit” encompasses any item or items of information); and
a user interface configured to send the selected content unit to the user responsive to receiving the user-specific, timeseries data ([28], [101], [102], and [104] describe outputting and displaying the determined factors to the user as potential causes of their symptoms);
but does not expressly disclose:
the mood assessment tool being an “external” mood assessment tool.
However, Paull teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events ([150]-[151], [247], [248], [316], and [320] describe using mood assessment tools, such as PHQ-9 and GAD-7, to periodically collect input from the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kohn to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events as taught by Paull since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn already discloses using a mood assessment tool to collect the mood event timeseries data, and doing so using an external mood assessment tool as taught by Paull would serve that same function in Kohn, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 22, Kohn discloses the claimed one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to ([28], [34], and [103] describe a computer application running on devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops, i.e. devices incorporating one or more non-transitory computer readable media and processors):
receive user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood events based on results from an mood assessment tool, and diarrhea symptoms ([27]-[29], [35], [78], [80], and [83] describe a digestive disorder-tracking app having an input module through which a user enters nutrition information, lifestyle information, and symptom information; [36]-[41] describe the nutrition information including diet information such as servings of fruit, grains, and other dietary categories; [43] and [47] describe the lifestyle information including the user’s stress level, i.e. mood; [49], [61], and [64] describe the symptom information including diarrhea);
execute a correlation algorithm to determine a correlation in the received data between i) information from the user-recorded diet and ii) mood events information from the user-recorded diarrhea symptoms ([78]-[82] and [101] describe the application analyzing the inputted nutritional, dietary, and moods related to diarrhea, and symptom data to identify elements are correlated to an increase in symptoms);
select a content unit based on the determined correlation exceeding a threshold, the content unit selected from a database of digestive health information ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation and selecting nutritional, medication, or lifestyle changes from a database. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “content unit” encompasses any item or items of information); and
send the selected content unit to the user responsive to rece1vmg the user-specific, timeseries data ([28], [101], [102], and [104] describe outputting and displaying the determined factors to the user as potential causes of their symptoms);
but does not expressly disclose:
the mood assessment tool being an “external” mood assessment tool.
However, Paull teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events ([150]-[151], [247], [248], [316], and [320] describe using mood assessment tools, such as PHQ-9 and GAD-7, to periodically collect input from the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kohn to use an external mood assessment tool to collect timeseries data indicative of mood events as taught by Paull since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn already discloses using a mood assessment tool to collect the mood event timeseries data, and doing so using an external mood assessment tool as taught by Paull would serve that same function in Kohn, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420142) in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohammed et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0129910).
With respect to claim 2, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose converting, by a user profile module, the user-recorded diet to digestive health factors, wherein information from the user-recorded diet and mood event comprises digestive health factors, and wherein the mood assessment tool is selected from a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), or Profile of Mood States (POMS).
However, Mohammed teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert a user-recorded diet into digestive health factors, with information from a user-recorded diet and mood comprises digestive health factors ([57] and [63]-[66] describe comparing foods recorded by a user to a database of nutritional information and deriving more detailed macronutrient, micronutrient, and other information for the consumed foods; [67]-[70] describe correlating the nutritional and lifestyle information to effects on the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kohn to convert a user-recorded diet into digestive health factors, with information from a user-recorded diet and mood comprises digestive health factors as taught by Mohammed since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn already discloses receiving diet information from the user, and converting the diet information to digestive health factors and including them in the user-recorded diet and mood information as taught by Mohammed would serve that same function in Kohn, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Paull further teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as a mood assessment tool ([150]-[151], [247], [248], [316], and [320] describe using mood assessment tools, including PHQ-9, to periodically collect input from the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn, Paull, and Mohammed to use Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as a mood assessment tool as taught by Paull since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case, Kohn, Paull, and Mohammed already teach using a mood assessment tool to collect the mood event timeseries data, and doing so using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as taught by Paull would serve that same function in Kohn, Paull, and Mohammed, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 12, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose wherein the information from the user-recorded diet comprises food characteristics, as determined though a database interaction, of specific food items entered by the user.
However, Mohammed teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine, through a database interaction, food characteristics of specific food items entered by a user for inclusion in information from a user-recorded diet ([57] and [63]-[66] describe comparing foods recorded by a user to a database of nutritional information and deriving more detailed macronutrient, micronutrient, and other information for the consumed foods; [67]-[70] describe correlating the nutritional and lifestyle information to effects on the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to determine, through a database interaction, food characteristics of specific food items entered by a user for inclusion in information from a user-recorded diet as taught by Mohammed since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teach receiving diet information from the user, and having the user-recorded diet comprise food characteristics, determined from a database, of specific items entered by a user as taught by Mohammed would serve that same function in the combination of Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 4-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420142) in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spiegel et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0065580).
With respect to claim 4, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose wherein the correlation identifies at least one of a food, a factor, a mood event, or a timing that correlates with lesser onset of diarrhea symptoms.
However, Spiegel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a correlation identifying at least one of a food, a factor, a mood, or a timing that correlates with lesser onset of diarrhea symptoms (Table 1 and [79] list diarrhea as one of the tracked symptoms; [117], [119], [142], and [158]-[161] describe supplying a dietary meal plan to the user, receiving user meal selections, and tracking improvements in the user’s symptom scores, i.e. the selected meals are correlated with lesser onset).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to determine a correlation identifying at least one of a food, a factor, a mood, or a timing that correlates with lesser onset of diarrhea symptoms as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teaches determining a correlation identifying at least one of a food, a factor, a mood, or a timing that correlates with diarrhea symptoms, and the correlation being with lesser onset of diarrhea symptoms as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 5, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn further discloses:
wherein the content unit is selected from a plurality of content units within the database ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation and selecting nutritional, medication, or lifestyle changes from the database);
but does not expressly disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of content units is indexed according to at least one of symptom level, food, factor, mood, or timing, and wherein the content unit is selected based on a match between the content unit's index and the determined correlation.
However, Spiegel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to index a plurality of content units according to at least one of symptom level, food, factor, mood, or timing, and wherein the content unit is selected based on a match between the content unit's index and the determined correlation ([117], [130]-[132], [134], and [135] describe the system containing educational material organized into multiple topics related to potential dietary triggers, and selecting content based on dietary information found relevant to the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to index a plurality of content units according to at least one of symptom level, food, factor, mood, or timing, and wherein the content unit is selected based on a match between the content unit's index and the determined correlation as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teaches determining a correlation based on user dietary information, and selecting a content unit based on an index for a symptom level, food, factor, mood, or timing correlated to the patient as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 6, Kohn/Paull/Spiegel teach the method according to claim 5. Kohn does not expressly disclose wherein the content unit is selected from the plurality of content units by using a human readable summary of the correlation as a search query.
However, Spiegel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a content unit by using a human readable summary of a correlation as a search query ([117], [130]-[132], [134], and [135] describe the system containing educational material related to different dietary triggers, and querying and selecting content based on the name of the trigger correlated to the patient).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn, Paull, and Spiegel to select a content unit by using a human readable summary of the correlation as a search query as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Kohn, Paull, Spiegel already teaches selecting a content unit, and selecting a content unit by using a human readable summary of the correlation as a search query as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn, Paull, and Spiegel, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 7, Kohn/Paull/Spiegel teach the method according to claim 5. Kohn further discloses:
wherein the plurality of content units in the database comprises content formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery ([80]-[82], [101], [104], and [113] describe determining factors which satisfy a threshold level of correlation and selecting nutritional, medication, or lifestyle changes from a database; [28] and [103] describe providing the results on a smart phone application, i.e. the content is formatted for smart-phone-app-delivery);
but does not expressly disclose:
the plurality of content units comprising a private library of digestive health content.
However, Spiegel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of content units comprise a private library of digestive health content (Figures 9A-9E, [117], [130]-[132], [134], and [135] describe the app containing customized educational material on topics related to potential dietary triggers, where custom material not accessed via a public source is construed as a “private” library).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn, Paull, and Spiegel to have a plurality of content units comprise a private library of digestive health content as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Kohn, Paull, and Spiegel already teaches a plurality of content units, and having the content units comprise a private library of digestive health content as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn, Paull, and Spiegel, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 10, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose tracking performance following delivery of the content unit and generating data to show efficacy of the content delivery.
However, Spiegel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track performance following delivery of a delivered content unit and generate data to show efficacy of the content delivery ([117] and [158]-[161] describe supplying intervention content to the user and tracking any improvements in the user’s symptom scores to report effects of the intervention).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to track performance following delivery of a delivered content unit and generate data to show efficacy of the content delivery as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teach delivering a content unit, and tracking performance following delivery of the content unit and generating data to show efficacy of the content delivery as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420142) in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wexler et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0255556).
With respect to claim 13, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose collecting a goal from the user and presenting goal tracking information based on how well the user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood event, and diarrhea symptom track to the goal.
However, Wexler teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect a goal from a user and present goal tracking information based on how well user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded information tracks to the goal (Figure 18, Claim 10, [25], [38], [265], [267], [276], and [278] describe a system collecting a goal from a user as well as timeseries data such as food intake, and presenting progress and other goal tracking information based on the timeseries data).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to collect a goal from a user and present goal tracking information based on how well user-specific, timeseries data indicative of user-recorded information tracks to the goal as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teach presenting content to a user as well as time, and collecting a goal from the user as well as timeseries data indicative of user-recorded diet, mood, and diarrhea symptom, and presenting goal tracking information based on how well the user-specific, timeseries data track to the goal as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420142) in view of Paull et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0028529) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seres et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0188161).
With respect to claim 15, Kohn/Paull teach the method according to claim 1. Kohn does not expressly disclose presenting the user with an interface to a public restroom geo-location database.
However, Seres teaches that it was old and well known in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to present a user with an interface to a public restroom geo-location database (Figures 26A and 26E, [492], and [497] describe an application interface showing nearby restroom locations gathered from a database containing restroom coordinates).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of dietary monitoring before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kohn and Paull to present a user with an interface to a public restroom geo-location database as taught by Spiegel since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Kohn and Paull already teach an app presenting a user with information relevant to gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhea, and presenting the user with an interface to a public restroom geo-location database as taught by Spiegel would serve that same function in Kohn and Paull, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jactel et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0022560);
Long (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0195970);
Leppard et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0304581).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights