DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This non-final first office action is in response to the Continuation Patent Application filed on 2 December 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The present application 18/965468 is a continuation of US Application No. 17/324,750, now issued patent 12,183,461 filed May 19, 2021. Therefore the instant application is afforded a priority date of May 19, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As a result of consideration of the instant invention with respect to the requirements of the 2019 PEG and Revised Step 2A Prongs One and Two and MPEP 2106 the instant invention is determined to be directed a judicial exception or abstract idea and is further directed to a practical application and computing improvement and is therefore eligible under the requirements of the statutes.
Examiner as a result of examination under the requirements of 2019 PEG and Revised Step 2A Prong One and MPEP 2106 continues to maintain the interpretation that the instant claims are directed to a judicial exception similar to similar to abstract ideas related to certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Examiner as a result of examination under the requirements of 2019 PEG and Revised Step 2A Prong Two and MPEP 2106 the Examiner concludes that the instant invention is directed to a practical application because the claimed and detailed processes carried out by the claimed decision coach which is clearly a computer operated artificial intelligence as noted at paragraphs [50] and [51] which specifically detail the implementation of a wide range of artificial intelligence and related processes and as well numerous references throughout the written description related to the steps and procedures performed by the decision coach in a wide range of implementations related to the performance of the instant invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 of the instant invention 18/965,468 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,461. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as indicated below in BOLD the claims are not patentably distinct.
Instant invention 18/965468
Claim 1: A system for engaging with care service options and/or lifestyle choices, comprising: at least one user device; an assessment platform; a data collection engine; a scoring engine; a recommendation engine; and a decision coach;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to administer at least one assessment to at least one user account on at least one user device and receive assessment data in response to the at least one assessment;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to receive data about the at least one user account from a plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the data collection engine is operable to collect passive data from the at least one user device and combine the passive data, the data from the plurality of interested third party devices, and the assessment data into user data;
wherein the scoring engine is operable to generate at least one score based on the user data;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to generate at least one recommendation based on the user data;
wherein the decision coach is operable to design a curriculum of next steps based on the user data, the at least one score, and the at least one recommendation;
wherein the decision coach is operable to mark data disagreement between the passive data obtained from the at least one user device, the assessment data, and the data from the plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the decision coach is operable to resolve the data disagreement;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to incorporate aggregate data and/or predictive analytics to make recommendations for resolving areas of data disagreement, wherein the recommendations are based on previously effective steps for resolving areas of data disagreement;
wherein the decision coach is operable to deliver the curriculum to the at least one user account on the at least one user device; and
wherein the decision coach is operable to adjust the curriculum based on updated user data.
Issued Patent 12,183,461
Claim 1: A system for engaging with care service options and/or lifestyle choices, comprising: at least one user device; at least one cloud platform; an assessment platform; a data collection engine; a scoring engine; a recommendation engine; and a decision coach;
wherein the at least one user device is operable for network communication with the at least one cloud platform;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to administer at least one assessment to at least one user account on at least one user device and receive assessment data in response to the at least one assessment;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to receive financial data about the at least one user account from a plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to receive data about the at least one user account from the plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the data collection engine is operable to collect passive data from the at least one user device and combine the passive data, the data from the plurality of interested third party devices, the financial data, and the assessment data into user data, wherein the user data is in a standardized format;
wherein the data collection engine is operable to determine the location of the at least one user device using a global positioning system (GPS);
wherein the scoring engine is operable to generate at least one score based on the user data;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to generate at least one recommendation based on the user data;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to utilize the location of the at least one user device in generating the at least one recommendation;
wherein the decision coach is operable to design a curriculum of next steps based on the user data, the at least one score, and the at least one recommendation;
wherein the decision coach is operable to mark data disagreement between the passive data obtained from the at least one user device, the assessment data, and the data from the plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the decision coach is operable to resolve the data disagreement;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to incorporate aggregate data and/or predictive analytics to make recommendations for resolving areas of data disagreement, wherein the recommendations are based on previously effective steps for resolving areas of data disagreement;
wherein the decision coach is operable to deliver the curriculum to the at least one user account on the at least one user device;
wherein the decision coach is operable to dynamically adjust the curriculum based on updated user data; and
wherein the at least one cloud platform is operable to store the user data and the curriculum.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest art of record, the combination of Jain et al. (11,636,500) in view of Ginsburg (20220084664) and Zhang et al. (20220222261) and Brannon et al. (20210182750) discloses an apparatus, method and computer readable medium which discloses the collection of a wide range of user related data including passive data, third party device data, financial data, and assessment data and the processing of the collected data for the generation of a user score which is used by the system to generate a treatment curriculum for patients and the dynamic adjustment of the curriculum. As well, the operations of the system are carried out by a decision coach which is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
Independent Claims 1, 16, and 19 are recited below:
A system for engaging with care service options and/or lifestyle choices, comprising: at least one user device; an assessment platform; a data collection engine; a scoring engine; a recommendation engine; and a decision coach;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to administer at least one assessment to at least one user account on at least one user device and receive assessment data in response to the at least one assessment;
wherein the assessment platform is operable to receive data about the at least one user account from a plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the data collection engine is operable to collect passive data from the at least one user device and combine the passive data, the data from the plurality of interested third party devices, and the assessment data into user data;
wherein the scoring engine is operable to generate at least one score based on the user data;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to generate at least one recommendation based on the user data;
wherein the decision coach is operable to design a curriculum of next steps based on the user data, the at least one score, and the at least one recommendation;
wherein the decision coach is operable to mark data disagreement between the passive data obtained from the at least one user device, the assessment data, and the data from the plurality of interested third party devices;
wherein the decision coach is operable to resolve the data disagreement;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to incorporate aggregate data and/or predictive analytics to make recommendations for resolving areas of data disagreement, wherein the recommendations are based on previously effective steps for resolving areas of data disagreement;
wherein the decision coach is operable to deliver the curriculum to the at least one user account on the at least one user device; and
wherein the decision coach is operable to adjust the curriculum based on updated user data.
However, the combination of Jain, in view of Ginsburg, Zhang and Brannon does not teach at least:
wherein the decision coach is operable to resolve the data disagreement;
wherein the recommendation engine is operable to incorporate aggregate data and/or predictive analytics to make recommendations for resolving areas of data disagreement, wherein the recommendations are based on previously effective steps for resolving areas of data disagreement.
Moreover, the missing claimed elements from the combination of Jain, in view of Ginsburg, Zhang and Brannon are not found in a reasonable number of references. Yet even if the missing claimed elements were found in a reasonable number of references, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not have been motivated to include these missing elements in the combination of Jain, in view of Ginsburg, Zhang and Brannon because a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention would not find a motivation for such a combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please see attached References Cited form 892.
See Cayle et al. (20180121610) for disclosures related to methods for selecting healthcare data processing approaches for the purpose of increasing the value and transformation of related data for better presentation of healthcare related data. See at least paras. [54]-[77].
See Gandy et al. (20150356701) for disclosures related to the implementation of a user engagement system which implements a medical related regimen and monitors the patient’s adherence to the regimen customized to the patient. See at least paras. [36]-[55].
See Theis (20110225007) for disclosures related to methods for the distribution of medical related information and patient services including the provision of coaches to guide patients through the treatments. See at least paras. [64]-[103].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Stoltenberg whose telephone number is (571) 270-3472.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on (571) 272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300, or the examiner’s direct fax phone number is (571) 270 4472.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at (866) 217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/DAVID J STOLTENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685