Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and are addressed below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-43 are drawn to a method which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 10, 19 “receiving medical condition information”, “receiving patient data relating to medical information”, “transmitting a motion pattern based on the received patient data”, “receiving motion data associated with the patient the motion data representing performance of at least one range of motion exercise provided by the motion pattern based on the patient data by the patient”, “comparing in response to the receiving the motion data, the received data and the motion data to corresponding baseline data”, “generating in response to the comparing, a medical diagnosis based on the received patient data and the motion data”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, 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 recite the additional “wherein the transmission causes an indication of the motion pattern to display to the patient on a wearable heads up display associated with the portable computing device” and “wherein the baseline data is stored on the server computing device”, which is a nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and as such amounts to extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept when the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, receiving and storing of data is incidental to configuring the bins. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
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).
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 (“server computing device”, “sensor”, “wearable heads up display”) 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 20, where “presentation device 18 includes more than one display device. In one embodiment, display device is a heads-up display that can be incorporated into and/or on wearable items (e.g., glasses).”
Paragraph 24 recites “an exemplary electronic diagnostic system 100 for use in diagnosing a medical condition of a patient. In the exemplary embodiment, system 100 includes a host server 102, a plurality of portable communication devices 104, and a workstation 105. Portable communication device 104 may include, without limitation, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile network devices, and/or mobile handheld devices (e.g., an iPad® device), a heads-up display device, etc. It should be appreciated that each of host server 102, portable communication devices 104, and workstation 105 are exemplary computing devices 10.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional “wherein the transmission causes an indication of the motion pattern to display to the patient on a wearable heads up display associated with the portable computing device” and “wherein the baseline data is stored on the server computing device”, which is a nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and as such amounts to extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept when the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, receiving and storing of data is incidental to configuring the bins. 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) 22-43 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.
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