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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-19 has been considered and are addressed below. Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-24-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 6-24-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended claim is similar to Example 37 where it re organizes the home screen icons based on usage which provides improvement over prior systems while the instant claim utilizes computer logic to determine whether to display a selectable object that when selected initiates a process to modify a status of a tracked medication. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim does not automatically arrange icons based on usage rather it updates a status of the medication, which is similar to just changing a status of the medication for example from in use to discontinue. This is mere displaying an indication to log an action and an updated data status does not improve computer technology.
Applicant argues that similar to Core Wireless, the specification confirms that the claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices particularly in small screens. Applicant argues that the instant claim is an improvement in the functioning of a computer by reducing the number of actions and inputs to provide a selectable object that modifies the status of the medication. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying a notice to log an action and status update is still based on inputs made by a user, therefore it’s still certain methods of organizing human activity. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
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, 3-8, 10-19 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, 3-8, 10-19 are drawn to a computer implemented computer readable non-transitory medium, computer implemented method, system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 18 and 19, recite “the one or more programs including instructions displaying an indication to log an action associated with a medication that is scheduled to be taken at a respective time”, “detecting a request to log an action associated with the medication”, and “after detecting the request to log the action associated with the medication: in accordance with a determination that the action associated with the medication corresponds to a last dose of the medication, displaying a first type of visual element that indicates that the action associated with the medication has been logged wherein the first type of visual element is automatically displayed and includes a selectable object that when selected causes to initiate a process to modify a status of medication”, and “in accordance with a determination that the action associated with the medication does not correspond to the last dose of the medication, displaying a second type of visual element that indicates that the action associated with the medication has been logged, wherein the second type of visual element is automatically displayed and is different from the first type of visual element, “while displaying the first type of visual element that includes the first selectable object, detecting a first set of one or more inputs that includes a selection of the first selectable object,” in response to detecting the first set of one or more inputs that includes the selection of the first selectable object, modifying the status of the medication”, “after modifying the status of the medication, displaying generation components in accordance with a determination that the medication with the modified status corresponds to an active medication, includes an indication to log an action associate with the medication that is scheduled to be taken at a second respective time”, “in accordance with a determination that the medication corresponds to an inactive medication, does not include an indication to log an action associated with the medication.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “one or more display generation components and one or more input devices, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors”, “via the one or more display generation components”, “one or more input devices”, “”a first user interface”, “a second user interface”, “one or more display” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite do not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims 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 the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 43 recite “an electronic device that includes a display and a touch-sensitive surface is described. It should be understood, however, that the electronic device optionally includes one or more other physical user-interface devices, such as a physical keyboard, a mouse, and/or a joystick”.
Paragraph 51 recites “he one or more processors 120 run or execute various software programs (such as computer programs (e.g., including instructions)) and/or sets of instructions stored in memory 102 to perform various functions for device 100 and to process data. In some embodiments, peripherals interface 118, CPU 120, and memory controller 122 are, optionally, implemented on a single chip, such as chip 104. In some other embodiments, they are, optionally, implemented on separate chips.”
The claims recite do not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-17 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights