DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 20 December, 2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This application is a continuation of 18/437,817 now US 12,211,622; which is a continuation of 17/864,586 now US 11,929,178; which is a continuation of 17/222,732 now US 11,417,428.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite a processor configured to execute an “executable asset” to configure information for a person using a “program of multiple programs”. The specification discloses that programs include: “diabetes management or care, diabetes prevention, hypertension management or care, hypertension prevention, weight loss, behavioral health, coronary artery disease/high cholesterol, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, comorbidities, congestive heart failure, cardiac rehab, and so on.” (@ 0041) Each program includes “goals and missions” or tasks that may be “configured” for a person. The claims provide “coaching” to the person using “computer code”. The computer code also provides coaching to an additional/second person associated with a different program, goal, or mission.
The specification discloses that coaching services are old and well known, and that the present invention “may step in where human coaches fall down” . . . “when it can handle as many functions with as much responsiveness as human coaches.” As such, the claims merely automate a known manual process, and may reasonably be construed as being directed to an abstract mental process (i.e. collecting and analyzing information to obtain a result); or an abstract method of organizing human activity (i.e. following rules or instructions); under U.S.C. §101.
Nonetheless, the claims recite features that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e. an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself). For example, the claim requires that the same computer code provide coaching to two different persons with two different programs, goals or missions. The specification expressly states that this arrangement may “improve the operation of components of electronic devices and or systems that implement the flow engine . . . due to the fewer hardware and or software resources (such as memory, processing resources, storage space, and so on) necessary to store and execute the flow engine”. As such, the Examiner concludes that the claims are patent-eligible under U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 16 recites: “omit the configuring the second user information for the second person using the second goal.” Examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims. Claim 16 depends from Claim 15, which requires the recited “configuring”; placing these claims in conflict, and rendering them unclear. Further, the configuring allows the further recited “coaching and tracking”. It is unclear to the Examiner how these functions can be performed without the information being configured. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 modifies Claim 15 to omit certain steps, such that the resulting claim is similar to Claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 14 - 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1)
CLAIMS 1 and 15/16
Harma discloses a counselling chatbot service that includes the following limitations:
A system, comprising: a memory allocation configured to store at least one executable asset; and a processor allocation configured to access the memory allocation and execute the at least one executable asset; (Harma 0022, 0064, 0067, 0068); that:
configures user information stored in a database for a person using a program of multiple programs, at least one of multiple goals, and at least one of multiple missions; (Harma 0005, 0009, 0034, 0043, 0067, 0068);
retrieves the user information for the person from the database; (Harma 0015, 0048, 0067, 0068);
provides coaching for the first person in association with the program that is configured for the person using at least computer code; (Harma 0005 – 0008, 0034, 0035, 0054, 0056);
tracks the coaching in user progress stored in the database; (Harma 0007, 0041, 0071).
Harma discloses a computing device comprising a memory storing executable instructions, (i.e. at least one executable asset), and a processor configured to execute the instructions to provide coaching services that uses a chatbot, (i.e. computer code), to coach subjects to achieve a target behavior change (i.e. a goal), based on a user’s observed or inferred state. Targeted behaviors include: “smoking, alcohol consumption (or “drinking”), drug use, exercise habits, eating habits, social behaviors, and so forth.” (i.e. a program of multiple programs) The chatbot is configured to provide coaching to achieve the user’s goal for the targeted behavior, including providing actions for the user to perform corresponding to the coaching. (i.e. a mission of multiple missions). The computing device includes a storage subsystem that stores programming and data in a file storage subsystem (i.e. a database). Harma discloses providing coaching to subjects to achieve the subject’s goal for the targeted behavior; and tracks cumulative progress in achieving the target behavior change (i.e. goal).
With respect to the following limitation:
provide coaching for the person . . . using at least computer code that the at least one service also uses to provide additional coaching for an additional person in association with at least one of a different program, goal, or mission; (Payne 0026, 0027, 0030, 0034, 0039, 0065, 0067, 0073).
Harma discloses providing coaching to subjects using the same counseling chatbot functionality (i.e. computer code), across the multiple targeted behaviors/programs, goals or actions/missions; but does not expressly disclose also providing coaching for an additional person associated with a different program, goal or mission. Payne discloses an automated diet performance tracking system that includes a user selecting a diet challenge (i.e. a program), and tracking diet performance parameters associated with the challenge over time. The system provides diet challenge content, using a programmed computer, directed to changing the user’s diet performance parameter levels, in order to hit a preset diet performance threshold level. The system can present a first user with a first recommendation based on the first user’s first diet challenge and diet performance parameter levels; and present a second user with a second recommendation based on the second user’s selection of a second diet challenge and diet performance parameter levels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma so as to have included coaching another person independently, in accordance with the teaching of Payne, in order to serve a community of users.
CLAIMS 8 and 15
Claims 8 and 15 differ from Claim 1 in positively reciting configuring, retrieving, providing coaching and tracking for a first and second person. Harma/Payne, in combination, teaches these features as shown above.
CLAIM 12
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
render the first coaching and the second coaching by calling a conversational service that is associated with the first goal; (Harma 0005, 0006, 0015, 0032).
Harma discloses coaching services by calling on a chatbot.
CLAIM 14
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 8. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein a mission of the multiple missions is associated with at least the first goal and a second goal of the multiple goals; (Harma 0005, 0009).
The claims require that a “mission”, (i.e. an action or task), such as: “diet” or “exercise”; is associated with a first and second goal such as: “lose weight”, “lower glucose”, “lower carbohydrate intake”, etc. The exemplary missions are inherently associated with at least two of the exemplary goals.
CLAIM 17
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 15. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the at least one of the multiple missions is the first mission; (Harma 0009, 0043, 0049).
Harma discloses selecting “missions” - i.e. tasks or actions that the user is to perform.
CLAIM 19
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 15. With respect to the following limitations:
configure the second user information using the second goal for the second person in response to input from the second person; (Payne 0030, 0065).
Harma discloses a user interface for selecting target behavior changes desired (i.e. a goal). Payne discloses a first and second person selecting information to configure the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma so as to have included configuring the system for a second person independently, based on user input in accordance with the teaching of Payne, in order to serve a community of users.
Claim 2, 5 - 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Volosin et al.: (US PGPUB 2021/0035674 A1)
CLAIMS 2, 5 and 7
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 1. With respect to the following limitations:
a first goal of the multiple goals; and a second goal of the multiple goals; (Volosin 0128, 0135 – 0138);
wherein the at least one service configures the first goal as primary and the second goal as secondary; (Volosin 0128, 0135 – 0138, Figure 7E);
wherein the at least one service configures another goal as primary after completion of the first goal; (Volosin 0138).
Harma/Payne discloses setting goals but does not expressly disclose setting a first, primary goal and a second, secondary goal. Volosin discloses a system for managing health-improving plans that includes selecting a first and second goal, where the first goal is indicated as a primary goal (i.e. “Exercise 1”) and the second goal is secondary (i.e. “Exercise 2”). Volosin provides dynamic goal setting as patient the patient advances through the plan. The specification discloses that “primary” and “secondary” indicate priority and focus (@ 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne so as to have included goals having different priority and focus, in accordance with the teaching of Volosin, in order to focus the user on the most important goal.
CLAIM 6
The combination of Harma/Payne/Volosin discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 5 and 15. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the at least one service selects the at least one of the multiple missions according to an association between the first goal and the at least one of the multiple missions because the first goal is primary; wherein the at least one of the multiple missions is the first mission; (Harma 0009, 0043, 0049).
Harma discloses selecting “missions” - i.e. tasks or actions that the user is to perform.
CLAIM 20
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 15. With respect to the following limitations:
configure the first user information using the first goal for the first person based on a specification for the program; (Payne 0005, 0030, 0036).
Harma discloses a user interface for selecting target behavior changes desired (i.e. a goal). Payne discloses configuring the system based on diet performance parameters associated with the goal (i.e. a specification for the program).
With respect to the following limitations:
configure the second user information using the first goal and the second goal for the second person; (Volosin 0128, 0135 – 0138).
Harma/Payne discloses setting goals but does not expressly disclose setting a first and a second goal. Volosin discloses a system for managing health-improving plans that includes selecting a first and second goal, where the first goal is indicated as a primary goal (i.e. “Exercise 1”) and the second goal is secondary (i.e. “Exercise 2”). Volosin provides dynamic goal setting as patient the patient advances through the plan. The specification discloses that “primary” and “secondary” indicate priority and focus (@ 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne so as to have included goals having different priority and focus, in accordance with the teaching of Volosin, in order to focus the user on the most important goal.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Markham et al.: (US PGPUB 2021/0150439 A1)
CLAIM 18
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 15. With respect to the following limitations:
configure the first user information for the first person using the second goal as an optional goal; (Markham 0040, 0041, 0086, 0096, 0097).
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses setting first and second goals but does not expressly disclose setting an optional goal. Markham discloses a case management system for setting goals and actions items for each goal including setting mandatory and optional goals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne so as to have included mandatory and optional goals, in accordance with the teaching of Markham, in order to focus the user on the most important goal.
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Volosin et al.: (US PGPUB 2021/0035674 A1) in view of Markham et al.: (US PGPUB 2021/0150439 A1)
CLAIMS 3 and 4
The combination of Harma/Payne/Volosin discloses the limitations above relative to Claims 2 and 15. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the first goal is mandatory for the program; wherein the second goal is optional for the program; (Markham 0040, 0041, 0086, 0096, 0097).
The combination of Harma/Payne/Volosin discloses setting first and second goals but does not expressly disclose setting a first, mandatory goal and a second, optional goal. Markham discloses a case management system for setting goals and actions items for each goal including setting mandatory and optional goals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne/Volosin so as to have included mandatory and optional goals, in accordance with the teaching of Markham, in order to focus the user on the most important goal.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Zhang et al.: (US PGPUB 2016/0228072 A1).
CLAIM 9
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 8. With respect to the following limitations:
adjust a threshold associated with the first person based on a comorbidity associated with the first person; (Zhang 0055, 0065).
The combination of Hama/Payne discloses observing or inferring the user’s state based on patient information, but does not disclose adjusting thresholds for comorbid conditions. Zhang discloses a patient monitoring system that includes adjusting thresholds for a condition of interest based on comorbid conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne so as to have included adjusting thresholds for comorbid conditions, in accordance with the teaching of Zhang, in order to accurately determine patient status.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Zhang et al.: (US PGPUB 2016/0228072 A1) in view of Nusbaum et al.: (US PGPUB 2014/0214446 A1).
CLAIM 10
The combination of Harma/Payne/Zhang discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 9. With respect to the following limitations:
wherein the threshold is a nutritional threshold; (Nusbaum 0006).
Harma contemplates target behaviors including eating behaviors, but does not disclose adjusting nutritional thresholds based on comorbid conditions. Nusbaum discloses a system and method for achieving weight, diet, nutrition and exercise goals that includes adjusting nutritional thresholds based on comorbid conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne/Zhang so as to have included adjusting nutritional thresholds based on the presence of comorbid conditions, in accordance with the teachings of Nusbaum, in order to accurately determine patient status.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harma et al.: (US PGPUB 2019/0297033 A1) in view of Payne et al.: (US PGPUB 2022/0084100 A1) in view of Hu et al.: (US PGPUB 2014/0363797 A1).
CLAIMS 11 and 13
The combination of Harma/Payne discloses the limitations above relative to Claim 8. With respect to the following limitations:
prevent the first program from being used with a second goal of the multiple goals; prevent the first program from being used with a mission of the multiple mission; (Hu Abstract, 0019 – 0021, 0023, 0052 – 0056, 0061).
The claims require preventing a program from being used with a particular goal (i.e. lose weight, lower glucose) and/or a mission (i.e. diet, exercise). The specification discloses preventing conflicts (@ 0047), for example, if selected goals are “not allowed” (@ 0150, 0156). Harma/Payne does not disclose preventing conflicts in goals or missions; however, Hu does. Hu discloses detecting and resolving conflicts in wellness applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to have modified the counseling system of Harma/Payne so as to have included identifying and resolving conflicts, in accordance with the teachings of Hu, in order to avoid conflicting directives.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,417,428 B1. Additionally, Claims 1 – 20 are unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,929,178 B2; and over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,211,622 B2. Although the pending claims in the present application are not identical to the respective issued claims, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued independent claims recite all of the limitations of the pending independent claims. The pending dependent claims recite features for managing programs, goals and missions which Examiner asserts are known in the art as shown in the rejection above, and are obvious modifications to the base claim.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2014/0324460 A1 to Caffrey et al. discloses a system and method for managing health risk that includes recommended goals and optional goals.
US PGPUB 2015/0201888 A1 to Vachon et al. discloses a wellness method that includes individual goals and optional goals for a user.
US PGPUB 2016/0042152 A1 to Oran discloses a system and method for determining dynamic health goals including suggested goals, additional goals and alternative goals.
US PGPUB 2022/0230208 A1 to Saliman et al. discloses a wellness system that includes adjusting a score based on a comorbidity.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 26 February, 2026