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 .
Applicant filed a communication dated 4/18/2025 in which claim 1 is pending in the application. Preliminary amendment dated 11/21/2025 in which claim 1 has been amended and new claims 2-11 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-11 are pending in the 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining completion status for a user based on compliance rate without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 5.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving by a processor, a compliance signal from a user indicating a status of a scheduled health event, wherein the compliance signal comprises at least one of a confirmation signal and an omission signal, wherein the confirmation signal indicates completion of the scheduled health event by the user, and wherein the omission signal indicates omission of the scheduled health event by the user; adding, by the processor, the compliance signal from the user to a user summary associated with the user, wherein the user summary comprises a plurality of past compliance signals, each of which being associated with a past health event; determining, by the processor, an appropriate compliance category in the user summary for the recited compliance signal, wherein the compliance category is at least one of a completion category reflecting completed health events by the user and an omission category reflecting omitted health events by the user; assigning, by the processor, the received compliance signal to the appropriate compliance category, wherein the received compliance signal is placed in the completion category in response to the received compliance signal comprising the confirmation category, and wherein the received compliance signal is placed in the omission category in response to the received compliance signal comprising the omission signal; and determining, by the processor, a compliance rate for the user, wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage the completed health events relative to a total number of health events, wherein the total number of health events is equal to the completed health events plus the omitted health events, wherein the scheduled health event is at least one of a scheduled activity event, a mental health event, and a lifestyle habit commitment. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a mental process (as they specifically describe processing of information). The additional elements of a processor do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of a processor do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of usage of a processor amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of a receiving step, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (Such as steps performed by a computer processor and a server, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
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 computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving information by a processor, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
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 inventive concept present and the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claim 5 and hence the claim 5 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-11 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims and as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catani et al., WO2015195732A1 in view of Francois, US Patent Application No. 2017/0262604A1 in view of Damani et al., WO2014047570A1.
Regarding claim 1, Catani discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a compliance signal from a user indicating a status of a scheduled health event ([0190]-[0191]), wherein the compliance signal comprises at least one of a confirmation signal and an omission signal ([00058], [00348], [00358], the device can detect whether or not the user has committed to a health event or not), wherein the confirmation signal indicates completion of the scheduled health event by the user ([0227], [0241]-[0242], Fig. 16), and wherein the omission signal indicates omission of the scheduled health event by the user ([00238], [00241]-[0242], whether the certain scheduled activity has been performed or not and the user’s compliance with regards to the scheduled activities is updated accordingly);
adding, by the processor, the compliance signal from the user to a user summary associated with the user, wherein the user summary comprises a plurality of past compliance signals, each of which being associated with a past health event ([0295], [0373]);
determining, by the processor, an appropriate compliance category in the user summary for the received compliance signal ([0191]-[0192]), wherein the compliance category is at least one of a completion category reflecting completed health events by the user and an omission category reflecting omitted health events by the user ([0238], [0241]-[0242]);
assigning, by the processor, the received compliance signal to the appropriate compliance category, wherein the received compliance signal is placed in the completion category in response to the received compliance signal comprising the confirmation signal ([0223]-[0225], [0227], [0241]-[0242], [0299], Fig. 6, reference item 306, Fig. 16, reference item 376), and wherein the received compliance signal is placed in the omission category in response to the received compliance signal comprising the omission signal; and
determining, by the processor, a compliance rate for the user, wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage the completed health events relative to a total number of health events, wherein the total number of health events is equal to the completed health events plus the omitted health events ([00238], [00241]-[00242], Fig. 7, 23, 24);
wherein the scheduled health event is at least one of a scheduled activity event, a mental health event, and a lifestyle habit commitment ([00238], [00241]-[00242], Fig. 7, 23, 24).
Catani does not specifically disclose
an omission category reflecting omitted health events by the user;
wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage the completed health events relative to a total number of health events, wherein the total number of health events is equal to the completed health events plus the omitted health events.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Catani to include the above-noted disclosure of Francois. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to track the lifestyle of the user.
However, Francois discloses
an omission category reflecting omitted health events by the user ([0069], Fig. 3i, missed activities; [0143]-[0144], completed and uncompleted health events).
Catani and Francois do not specifically disclose
wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage the completed health events relative to a total number of health events, wherein the total number of health events is equal to the completed health events plus the omitted health events.
However, Damani discloses
wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage the completed health events relative to a total number of health events, wherein the total number of health events is equal to the completed health events plus the omitted health events ([00118]-[00120], Fig. 12-14, percentage of accomplished activities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Catani and Francois to include the above-noted disclosure of Damani. The motivation for combining these disclosures would have been to track the lifestyle of the user.
Regarding claim 2, Catani discloses determining, by the processor, a compliance status for the user based on the compliance rate ([00250], [00253], Fig. 22-23).
Regarding claim 3, Catani discloses wherein the receiving the compliance signal comprising an omission signal is in response to an absence of the compliance signal from the user for the scheduled health event, and in response, the receiving the compliance signal comprises generating, by the processor, the compliance signal comprising the omission signal ([00058], [00238], [00241], [00348], [00358]).
Regarding claim 4, Catani discloses displaying, by the processor, the compliance rate associated with the user on a graphical user interface ([00205], [00323], [00324], Fig. 49, reference item 622).
Regarding claim 9, Catani discloses a fitness or health partner location feature ([0243]).
Regarding claim 10, Catani discloses a professional recommendations feature ([0243], scheduled exercise class).
Regarding claim 11, Catani discloses defining engagement levels with respect to the scheduled health event ([0243], continual movement has been performed).
Claims 5-8 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights