DETAILED ACTION
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 03/10/25.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/11/25 has been partially considered. None of the foreign references or non-patient literature references were considered.
The IDS filed 08/11/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Priority/Continuity
Status of this application as a continuation of US Application 17/364,414, filed 06/30/21, which claims the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/066,037, filed 08/14/2020 is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 08/14/2020 has been given to this application.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-18 are drawn to a method, Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and Claim 20 is drawn to a portable electronic device, each of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving, at disparate timing intervals and via one or more metric collection mechanisms, data related to a plurality of disparate metric collection inputs, the one or more metric collection mechanisms comprising one or more medical record sources;
accessing a metric targets profile, wherein the metric targets profile includes a plurality of metric targets corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs;
determining raw scores for the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs, wherein the raw scores are determined based on the metric targets profile;
accessing a metric weights profile, wherein the metric weights profile includes a plurality of metric weights corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs;
determining one or more aggregated scores based on the raw scores and the plurality of metric weights, wherein the determination accommodates the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs by weighting the raw scores based on relative importance to the pre- or post-transplant recipient;
generating a metric progress aggregation insight report comprising the one or more aggregated scores;
outputting the metric progress aggregation insight report; and
dynamically updating the metric progress aggregation insight report based on receiving additional data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Receiving data, accessing metrics target and weight profiles to determine raw and aggregate scores respectively, generating and outputting a metric progress aggregation insight report comprising the aggregated scores, and updating the aggregation insight report based on additional received data are personal behaviors that may be performed by healthcare providers.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recites similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
one or more sensors onboard a portable electronic device, one or more offboard sensors electronically coupled to the portable electronic device, a graphical user interface (GUI) of the portable electronic device (Claim 1, 19, 20)
a processor of the portable electronic device as implementing the steps of accessing a metric targets profile, wherein the metric targets profile includes a plurality of metric targets corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs and accessing a metric weights profile wherein the metric weights profile includes a plurality of metric weights corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs (Claim 1)
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a portable electronic device having a display, cause the portable electronic device as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 19)
a portable electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 20):
relative importance determination logic (Claims 1, 19, 20) as implementing the step of determining one or more aggregated scores based on the raw scores and the plurality of metric weights;
remote electronic medical record sources (Claims 1, 19, 20) as the type of medical records
metric progress aggregation insight interface (Claims 1, 19, 20) as means of electronically displaying the aggregated scores and updated scores
The broad recitation of general purpose computing element at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the one or more sensors onboard of a portable electronic device and one or more offboard sensors electronically coupled to the electronic device, the specification does not provide any disclosure to the particulars of the sensors. The specification does not define any specific types of sensors classified as onboard/offboard, or data that may specifically be collected via “onboard” or “offboard” sensors, nor does it describe any structure of these sensors. Therefore, the onboard and offboard sensors are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose sensors functioning in their ordinary capacity.
Regarding the a graphical user interface (GUI) of the portable electronic device, no particulars are disclosed, therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose interface/display screen of a general purpose computing device, functioning in its ordinary capacity per [0024], [0032].
Regarding the portable electronic device, per [0069], this is understood to be a device “such as a cellular phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a wearable device”; regarding the processor, para. [0069] further discloses “The device 502 can include a processor 504 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)”. No particulars of the device or processor are provided, therefore, they are both given the broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose cellular phone, tablet, laptop or wearable device with a general purpose processor, functioning in their ordinary capacities.
Regarding a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a portable electronic device having a display, cause the portable electronic device, as the specification does not appear to disclose any particulars, these elements are all given the broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacities, see paras. [0018], [0069]-[0072].
Regarding a portable electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions, per para. [0069], this is understood to be a general purpose computing device such as a cellular phone, tablet or laptop computer, or wearable device, functioning in its ordinary capacity. The processor, memory, and display are also understood to be general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacities per paras. [0069]-[0072]. Regarding “one or more programs including instructions”, this only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, paras. [0019], [0070], [0071].
Regarding relative importance determination logic, the specification does not describe any particulars of this other than reiterating claim language (see Abstract). Therefore, it is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as using computer logic to perform calculations (e.g., one or more aggregated scores based on raw scores) and only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding “remote electronic” medical record sources, this only amounts to using a computer to maintain/access medical records in electronic format.
Regarding “metric progress aggregation insight interface”, no particulars of the interface are provided, and as such, this is understood to amount to using a general purpose computing device screen to output data (see paras. [0024], [0032], [0072], Figs. 1-2).
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 19, 20 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (e.g., Claims 5, 7, 9, 11-16 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims) or are also certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 17-18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner: Claim 2 recites wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprise receiving input of the data via the GUI of the portable electronic device, which only amounts to applying the abstract idea of receiving data using the electronic device/GUI as a tool. Claim 3 recites wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprises taking one or more measurements using at least one of the one or more sensors onboard the portable electronic device, which only amounts to applying the abstract idea of taking measurements using sensors as a tool. Claim 4 recites wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprises taking one or more measurements using at least one of the one or more offboard sensors of a remote measurement device electronically coupled to the portable electronic device, which only amounts to applying the abstract idea (taking measurements) using sensors as a tool. Claim 6 recites dynamically changing the plurality of metric weights based on historical self-care status data associated with the pre- or post-transplant recipient, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare providers could change weights based on historical data, as a healthcare provider could change weights based on historical data associated with a transplant recipient. Claim 8 recites associating a bonus or a penalty with at least one of the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare providers associate a bonus or penalty with at least one of the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs. Claim 10 recites wherein dynamically determining the one or more aggregated scores includes determining an overall score, and wherein determining the overall score comprises: determining daily score weights for a plurality of daily scores within a scoring time window, wherein the overall score is based on the daily score weights and the plurality of daily scores, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare providers could perform calculations to determine scores and weights. Recitation of “the relative importance determination logic” only amounts to applying the abstract idea on a general purpose computer as discussed above with respect to parent claim 1. Claim 17 recites further comprising: dynamically changing at least one metric target of the plurality of metric targets to generate an updated plurality of metric targets; and storing the updated plurality of metric targets in the metric targets profile, thereby initiating an update to the metric targets profile, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare providers could make changes to metric targets to generate an updated plurality of targets, record (“store”) the targets in the target profile to initiate an update to the targets profile. Claim 18 recites wherein dynamically changing at least one metric target of the plurality of metric targets comprises: determining a similar pre- or post-transplant recipient set based on one or more similarity factors associated with the pre- or post-transplant recipient; and dynamically changing the at least one metric target based on a determination of activities and behaviors associated with the similar pre- or post-transplant recipient determine similar recipients based on similarity factors with a transplant patient and change the metric target based on associated similarities.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements (e.g., electronic device, processor, logic, etc.) only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-18, when analyzed as a whole, 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.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-20 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerber (US 2018/0049675) n view of Ohnemus (US 2018/0344215), and further in view of Chen et. al. (US 2015/0201878A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kerber discloses
receiving, at disparate timing intervals and via one or more metric collection mechanisms, data related to a plurality of disparate metric collection inputs ([0014] teaches on measuring one or more physiological parameters of a user; see also [0023] with respect to Fig. 1A, step 104; per [0030]/Claim 4, physiological parameters are understood to include heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, oxygen saturation, respiration, heart rate, activity, weight – interpreted as plurality of disparate metric collection inputs; [0036] teaches on monitoring a patient and acquiring new data to calculate a new patient overall health an safety context over a given time period, e.g., every hour over a 24 hour period; time intervals can be changed if the patient needs more frequent monitoring - interpreted as “disparate timing intervals”), the one or more metric collection mechanisms comprising one or more sensors onboard a portable electronic device ([0029], teaching on a patient monitoring system, including a patient monitoring device comprising a “sensor module” including a heart rate sensor, motion sensor, temperature sensor, location tracker, and
other sensors – interpreted as “onboard”; see Fig. 4), one or more offboard sensors electronically coupled to the portable electronic device ([0029] teaches on patient monitoring device in which “sensors may be separately housed” – interpreted as “offboard” sensors; [0031] teaches on the mobile device receiving data from the various sensors; [0043] teaches additional examples of “offboard” sensors (e.g., inertial sensors applied to the user’s body to allow measurement of movements), a graphical user interface (GUI) of the portable electronic device (para. [0029], patient monitoring device includes a graphical user interface; see Fig. 4, “graphical user interface” at 422 under “patient monitoring device”; [0031] teaches on “mobile device 510” which contains the patient monitoring software/application which manages communication between the mobile device and sensors), and one or more remote electronic medical record sources ([0005]-[0006], [0014]-[0015], and [0023]-[0024] all teach on the acquisition of medical record data for computing the health scores; see para. [0030] with respect to Fig. 4 and patient record database 406 – where the patient’s medical records are stored);
accessing, via a processor of the portable electronic device, a metric targets profile, wherein the metric targets profile includes a plurality of metric targets corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs (see Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0014] and [0023]-[0024], teaching on acquiring a user’s physiological parameters “disparate metric collection inputs”) and comparing to “one or more preset physiological parameter thresholds” – interpreted as a metric targets profile which includes a plurality of metric targets corresponding to the disparate metric collection inputs);
determining raw scores for the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs, wherein the raw scores are determined based on the metric targets profile (Fig. 1 B, paragraphs [0015]-[0016] and [0024], teaching on the calculation of an activity score, location score, health compliance score, and user health index in which user health index is calculated based on the measured one or more physiological parameters and comparison with the corresponding preset physiological parameter – interpreted as raw scores);
accessing, via the processor of the portable electronic device, a metric weights profile, wherein the metric weights profile includes a plurality of metric weights corresponding to at least the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs (Fig. 3 / [0026], teaching on determination of relative importance of each individually calculated score and the assignment of weights to each score).
determining, via relative importance determination logic, one or more aggregated scores based on the raw scores and the plurality of metric weights, wherein the relative importance determination logic accommodates the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs by weighting the raw scores based on relative importance to the [patient] ([0019], [0026]-[0028] teaches on calculating a patient health score based on the one or more measured physiological parameters (disparate metric collection inputs), comparing to corresponding predefined parameter thresholds, calculating a health compliance score, patient location score, and patient activity score; subsequently, assigning a corresponding weight to each of the calculated health scores using their determined relative importance – interpreted as “relative importance determination logic”; the system multiplies each of the calculated scores by their corresponding weights and an overall patient health and safety score is computed by adding the product of weight and score corresponding to each of the patient health, compliance, location, and activity - interpreted as “one or more aggregated scores” based on the raw scores and metric weights).
Kerber does not teach the following, but Ohnemus, which is directed to automated health data acquisition, processing and communication, teaches:
generating a metric progress aggregation insight interface comprising the one or more aggregated scores ([0127] teaches on a mobile computing device display screen (interface) provided by a mobile computing device that identifies a respective user’s health score at the present time as well as a bar graph identifying progress of the user’s daily score over the previous week; see Fig. 13 – if the interface has been output to the mobile display, Examiner interprets it has necessarily been “generated”; [0065] teaches on using sensing components to collect raw data which is processed to represent biological and/or physiological information);
outputting the metric progress aggregation insight interface to at least a display of the portable electronic device ([0127] teaches on a mobile computing device display screen (interface) provided by a mobile computing device that identifies a respective user’s health score at the present time as well as a bar graph identifying progress of the user’s daily score over the previous week; see Fig. 13 – outputting the interface to the display); and
dynamically updating the metric progress aggregation insight interface based on receiving additional data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs.
[0093] teaches on a daily, substantially real-time calculated health score is provided to the user; further, as taught by [0127] and Fig. 13, the previous week of scores is visible; Examiner interprets the new scores to have been generated and the interface being updated based on additional data received on each new day).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kerber with these teachings of Ohnemus, to
generate a metric progress aggregation insight interface comprising the one or more aggregated scores of Kerber, output the interface to a display, and dynamically update the interface as additional data is received, with the motivation of visually identifying progress of the user’s daily health score over a period of time (Ohnemus [0127]).
Kerber/Ohnemus do not teach the following, but Chen, which is directed to assessment of kidney transplant viability, teaches:
a pre-transplant or a post-transplant patient ([0005] teaches on there being over 77,500 patients annually “waiting for kidney transplants” – patients interpreted as being “pre-transplant”; [0006] teaches on shortcomings of cadaver kidneys “after transplantation” in which the receiving patient has a risk for eventual graft and patient survival – interpreted as “post-transplant” patient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus with these teachings of Chen, to weight the raw scores of Kerber/Ohnemus based on relative importance to the pre-transplant patient of Chen, with the motivation of predicting post-transplant outcomes for the pre-transplant recipient, so that organs can be used safely and the organ donor pool can be utilized optimally ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber does not disclose, but Ohnemus further teaches wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprise receiving input of the data via the GUI of the portable electronic device ([0064], teaching on the wearer of the health device inputting exercise and other activity information via the user interface with the user computing device; [0089] teaches on providing a notification such as a questionnaire or prompt to the user for information to encourage the user to provide health-related information; [0140] teaches on providing a plurality of data screens that include questions for the user to respond to).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen with these teachings of Ohnemus, to modify the means by which patient information is acquired, to include direct user input of exercise and other activity information via the user interface with the user computing device, as further taught by Ohnemus, with the motivation of receiving information from the user pertaining to their age, gender, weight, height, as well as habit-based information such as smoking/drinking, types of foods consumed, and subjective feelings of the user in order to generate a health score of the user (Ohnemus [0140], [0143]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprises taking one or more measurements using at least one of the one or more sensors onboard the portable electronic device ([0029], teaching on the health parameters including information from the sensors housed within the sensor module - the heart rate sensor, motion sensor, temperature sensor, etc.; see Fig. 4 – sensor module comprising various sensors such as heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, etc.; [0030] teaches on the monitoring device storing received data pertaining to heart rate, temperature, etc.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein receiving the data related to the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs comprises taking one or more measurements using at least one of the one or more offboard sensors of a remote measurement device electronically coupled to the portable electronic device ([0029] teaches on patient monitoring device in which “sensors may be separately housed” – interpreted as “offboard” sensors; [0031] teaches on the mobile device receiving data from the various sensors; [0043] teaches additional examples of “offboard” sensors (e.g., inertial sensors applied to the user’s body to allow measurement of movements)).
Regarding Claim 5, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses, wherein at least one of the plurality of metric targets is associated with an episode ([0017], teaching on the patient monitoring system assessing compliance with attending scheduled hospital or doctor visitations – an “episode” as defined by Applicant’s specification at [0029]); [0033] further teaches on compliance with required weekly post-surgery hospital visits).
Regarding Claim 6, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses dynamically changing the plurality of metric weights based on historical self-care status data associated with the [patient] ([0033] teaches on a patient having required post-surgery weekly hospital visits having a higher weight than other activities such as walking in the park; [0035] teaches on adjusting scoring based on health protocol compliance, e.g., -1 is assigned for failing to take at least one medication; Examiner interprets attending post-surgery hospital visits and taking medication to read on “self care”; [0014] teaches on acquiring historical activity records; Examiner notes that “pre-transplant recipient” is taught by Chen as discussed with respect to Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein at least one of the raw scores is a binary value ([0017], teaching on score calculation and a “binary 1 or 0 score” for particular parameters).
Regarding Claim 8, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses further comprising: associating a bonus or a penalty with at least one of the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs ([0017] teaches on assigning a negative value to a score when detected patient activity is prohibited, not recommended or previously determined to be unsafe – interpreted as associating a penalty with a collection input)
Regarding Claim 9, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber does not disclose, but Ohnemus further teaches wherein the one or more scores includes a daily score ([0093], [0127] teach on a “daily” health score for a user being generated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen with these teachings of Ohnemus, to modify the frequency with which the aggregated score of Kerber is calculated to include be a daily occurrence, as further taught by Ohnemus, with the motivation of enabling users to track progress of their health scores over a previous time period (Ohnemus [0127]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein dynamically determining, via the relative importance determination logic, the one or more aggregated scores includes determining an overall score ([0025] teaches on an overall score calculated by combining all of the individual patient health, compliance, activity, and location scores), and wherein determining the overall score comprises: determining daily score weights for a plurality of daily scores within a scoring time window ([0025] and [0036], teaching on every time compliance, health, location, and activity scores are calculated, the score weights are applied and an overall score is computed, and scores can be calculated multiple times over a designated time period - i.e. multiple times over a 24-hour period; [0026] teaches on assigning a corresponding weight to each score after determining corresponding importance; [0032] teaches on the scoring scheme depending on each term’s determined level of importance for a given set of patient’s circumstances; the scoring system assigns greater importance to certain terms (variables or parameters) that are more critical to the patient’s health based on the patient’s current circumstance – thus, one parameter that was assigned the highest weight on a previous day may be assigned a relatively low weight the following day to reflect a change in patient circumstance), wherein the overall score is based on the daily score weights and the plurality of daily scores ([0025] teaches on an overall score calculated by combining all of the individual patient health, compliance, activity, and location scores; per [0032] as cited in preceding limitation, weights are adjusted daily based on the patient’s circumstance which impacts the patient’s score).
Regarding Claim 11, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 10. Kerber further discloses wherein the daily score weights vary ([0032] teaches on the scoring scheme depending on each term’s determined level of importance for a given set of patient’s circumstances; the scoring system assigns greater importance to certain terms (variables or parameters) that are more critical to the patient’s health based on the patient’s current circumstance – thus, one parameter that was assigned the highest weight on a previous day may be assigned a relatively low weight the following day to reflect a change in patient circumstance), and are based on a number of days since a current day ([0032], [0034] teach on varying weights based on the day).
Regarding Claim 13, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein: (a) the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs is a plurality of health metrics and the plurality of metric targets is a plurality of health metric targets ([0024], teaching on the monitoring device taking physiological measurements and comparing them to predefined thresholds); (b) the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs is a plurality of behavioral metrics and the plurality of metric targets is a plurality of behavioral metric targets ([0017], [0035], respectively teaching on a compliance score being determined based on a patient parameters including engaging in prohibited activities based or a patient failing to take medication as directed by a required health protocol); or (c) the plurality of disparate metric collection inputs is a plurality of episodes and the plurality of metric targets is a plurality of episode targets ([0017], teaching on a compliance score being determined based on a patient attending scheduled medical visits).
Regarding Claim 14, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 13. Kerber further discloses claim 13, wherein the plurality of health metrics comprises one or more of water consumption, calorie consumption, urination information, blood pressure, body weight, number of steps taken, number of hours slept, blood oxygen levels, blood glucose levels, or pulse ([0030] teaches on physiological parameters of blood pressure and heart rate, where heart rate is synonymous with pulse; [0042], teaching on physiological parameters measured by the monitoring device include blood pressure, steps taken, calories burned, and sleep metrics).
Regarding Claim 15, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 13. Kerber further discloses wherein the plurality of behavioral metrics comprises one or more of medication adherence, mood levels, compliance with scheduled medical tests, compliance with medical office visits, or test results ([0035] teaches on a patient detected as being non-compliant with at latest one required health protocol because the patient failed to take his medicine for coronary heart disease – “medication adherence”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 13. Kerber further discloses wherein the plurality of episodes comprises one or more of scheduling a blood or urine test, scheduling a medical office visit, attending a medical office visit, or receiving a blood or urine test ([0017] teaches on calculation of a health compliance score taking into account parameters such as required physical exercises or schedule of sessions with a physical therapist or scheduled hospital or doctor visitations).
Regarding Claim 19, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 19 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as Claim 1, and the discussion above with respect to Claim 1 is equally applicable to Claim 19. The only difference is that Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a portable electronic device having a display, cause the portable electronic device to implement the steps of the claim. These elements are also taught by Kerber: see paras. [0052], [0053], [0056], [0060].
Regarding Claim 20, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 20 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as Claim 1, and the discussion above with respect to Claim 1 is equally applicable to Claim 20. The only difference is that Claim 20 recites the following limitations, which are also taught by Kerber: a portable electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions ([0029] teaching on the patient monitoring device which includes a processor, memory and graphical user interface (e.g., display); [0052]-[0053] further teach on the device of the present invention including a processor, memory, user interface; [0053] teaches on the processor executing instructions stored in memory); [0056] teaches on storage storing instructions for execution by the processor data [upon which the processor may operate).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerber (US 2018/0049675) in view of Ohnemus (US 2018/0344215), and further in view of Chen et. al. (US 2015/0201878A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mark et. al. (US 2020/0118684 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1. Kerber further discloses wherein the one or more aggregated scores are included in a personalized treatment regimen for the [patient] ([0035]-[0036] teach on the monitoring system assigning a particular score to “health protocol compliance” regarding how compliant they were with their treatment regimen (“protocol”); the health protocols are particular for patient, e.g., a patient failing to take his statin receives a negative score – assigning a score to the personalized protocol (treatment regimen) is interpreted as “including” the score in a personalized treatment regimen) for the patient.)
Kerber does not explicitly disclose that the patient is a pre-or post-transplant recipient, but Chen, which is directed to assessment of kidney transplant viability, teaches: a pre-transplant or a post-transplant patient ([0005] teaches on there being over 77,500 patients annually “waiting for kidney transplants” – patients interpreted as being “pre-transplant”; [0006] teaches on shortcomings of cadaver kidneys “after transplantation” in which the receiving patient has a risk for eventual graft and patient survival – interpreted as “post-transplant” patient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus with these teachings of Chen, to include the scores in a personalized treatment regimen for the pre-transplant patient of Chen, with the motivation of predicting post-transplant outcomes for the patient, so that organs can be used safely and the organ donor pool can be utilized optimally ([0006]).
Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen do not explicitly teach the following, but Mark, which is directed to a methods and systems for predictive organ transplant survival rates, teaches: the metric weights profile is based on an allogeneic organ transplant or allogeneic cells for the pre- or post-transplant recipient ([0014]-[0018] teach on examples of kidney, heart, liver and/or lung transplants (allogenic organ transplants); survival rates for these transplants may be estimated by assigning a respective weight to characteristics of previous persons in need of an organ transplant (pre-transplant recipients), comparing the characteristics of the prospective organ recipient (pre-transplant recipient) to each of the characteristics of previous organ transplant recipients).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen with these teachings of Mark, so that the metric weights profile of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen is based on an allogenic organic transplant for the pre-transplant recipient, with the motivation of using the weighted data to estimate survival rates for a particular transplant patient (Mark [0014]).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerber (US 2018/0049675) n view of Ohnemus (US 2018/0344215), and further in view of Chen et. al. (US 2015/0201878A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Damani (US 2014/0088995).
Regarding Claim 17, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen teach the limitations of Claim 1 but do not teach the following. Damani, which is directed to dynamic adjustments for personalized health and wellness programs, teaches: dynamically changing at least one metric target of the plurality of metric targets to generate an updated plurality of metric targets ([0061], teaching on the adjustment of health and wellness parameters based on a user's dynamically updated activity or biometrics); and storing the updated plurality of metric targets in the metric targets profile, thereby initiating an update to the metric targets profile (para. [0061], figs. 9-12, teaching on recording of the adjusted health and wellness parameters in the user dashboard to track user progress).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen with these teachings of Damani, to dynamically change at least one metric target to generate an updated plurality of metric targets and store the updated metric targets in the profile to generate an update to the profile, with the motivation of updating a user’s program (e.g., target metrics) based on their progress and physiological changes to help them more effectively achieve their goals (Damani [0061]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen/Damani teach the limitations of Claim 17. Damani further teaches wherein dynamically changing at least one metric target of the plurality of metric targets comprises: determining a similar [patient] set based on one or more similarity factors associated with the [patient]; and dynamically changing the at least one metric target based on a determination of activities and behaviors associated with the similar [patient] set ([0182] teaches on the ability of healthcare professionals to customize the health goals and recommendations for a user (patient) within an overall group of users exhibiting similar profiles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kerber/Ohnemus/Chen/Damani with these teachings of Damani, to determine a similar set of pre- or post-transplant recipients (taught by Chen) and dynamically change at last one target metric based on activities and behaviors of the similar patient set, with the motivation of correlating data to determine if goals and recommendations should be changed to modified (Damani [0182]).
Conclusion
In the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20180113985A1, teaching on a system for improving patient medical treatment plan compliance
US Publication 20170191128 A1, teaching on tissue molecular signatures of kidney transplant rejection
US Publication 20190307405 A1, teaching on a patient risk assessment using data from multiple sources in a healthcare facility to calculate a patient risk score
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682