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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Excessive IDS
The Applicant has submitted approximately more than 1,000 references consisting over 20,000 pages. In order for the Examiner to properly determine patentability over prior art submitted, it is requested that the Applicant explain the significance of each reference or highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. Specifically, the Applicant is requested to point out to the Examiner which references teach the multi-level marketing techniques as well as an employment location system.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long list of documents. The Examiner hereby requests elimination of clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D.Fla.1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. Denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites receive attribute data associated with a user, generate, based on the attribute data and a first health issue of the user, a selected set of the attribute data, wherein the first health issue corresponds to a first long-term care health issue of the user, determine, based on the selected set of the attribute data, a first probability associated with treating the first health issue, generate, based on the first probability, a treatment plan that includes one or more exercises directed to modifying the first probability, and transmit one or more control instructions to the electromechanical machine. Claim 13 recites similar limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user receiving attribute data associated with a user, generating, based on the attribute data and a first health issue of the user, a selected set of the attribute data, wherein the first health issue corresponds to a first long-term care health issue of the user, determining, based on the selected set of the attribute data, a first probability associated with treating the first health issue, generating, based on the first probability, a treatment plan that includes one or more exercises directed to modifying the first probability, and transmitting one or more control instructions to the electromechanical machine. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claim 13 recites similar limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claims 2 and 14 further define the attribute data. Claims 3 and 15 further define modifying the treatment plant based on one of first and second probability. Claims 4 and 16 further define the first health issue. Claims 5 and 17 further define the second health issue. Claims 6 and 18 further define executing an attribute data model. Claims 7 and 19 further define executing a probability model. Claims 8 and 20 further define executing a treatment plan model. Claim 9 further defines transmitting the modified treatment plan. Claim 10 further defines initiating a telemedicine session. Claim 11 further define identifying the second health issue. Claims 12 further define steps in response to identifying the second health issue, hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 13.
Claims 1-20: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. The computer, processing device(s), computing device, acquiring/receiving/retrieving data, accessing/storing data, analyzing/determining/comparing data, processing/calculating/summing data, and sending/communicating/transmitting data merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, such as to gather the data, compare data and present data 2106.05(f). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-20: Step 2B
The claim(s) and the dependent claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.").
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,222.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-26 in the 11,955,222 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-26 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing systems and methods for implementing and modifying treatment plan(s) based on generated probabilit(ies) related to the health of the user.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,052.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant pending application omits certain steps of claims 1-24 in the 12,224,052 patent. Therefore, claims 1-20 are prima facie obvious of claims 1-24 because it would have been obvious to omit certain steps with the motivation of providing systems and methods for implementing and modifying treatment plan(s) based on generated probabilit(ies) related to the health of the user.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
Purdie: U.S. Patent U.S. 10,475,537 B2
McNutt: U.S. Patent U.S. 11,495,355 B2
Kutzko: U.S. Patent U.S. 10,991,463 B2
McNair: U.S. Patent U.S. 11,527,326 B2
Van Der Koijk: U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. 2018/0052962 A1
Beene et al., “AI and Care Delivery: Emerging Opportunities For Artificial Intelligence To Transform How Care Is Delivered,” Nov 2019, American Hospital Association, pp. 1-12
Jeong et al.: “Computer-assisted upper extremity training using interactive biking exercise (iBikE) platform,” September 2012, pp. 1-5, 34th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 (EBC) 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.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights