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 response to the application filed 8/4/2025.
Claims 1-20 were canceled 8/4/2025.
Claims 21-40 were added 8/4/2025.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12315642. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions remotely monitor a patient by receiving a first set of images during a first imaging session at a first point in time, wherein the patient is enrolled in a medical treatment plan involving self-administration of a dosage of a selected weight loss drug and generating, mapping, and calculating anthropometric measurements based on 3D models mapped to the user skeleton.
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 21-40 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 21-40 are drawn to a method and a system which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 21 and 31 recite: select a weight loss drug from a plurality of weight loss drugs based on a current of future supply chain status; receiving, a first set of images of the patient captured during a first imaging session at a first point in time, wherein the patient is enrolled in a medical treatment plan involving self-administration of a dosage of the selected weight loss drug, and wherein the first set of images of the patient comprises images of various body regions of the patient from multiple angles; generating a first 3D model of the patient by processing the first set of images of the patient, wherein the first 3D model represents the patient's body during the first imaging session; generating a user skeleton for the first 3D model based on motion of the patient detected in the first set of images, wherein the user skeleton identifies a location of a joint of the patient, and wherein the user skeleton provides static-over-time reference points for anthropometric measurements; calculating a first anthropometric measurement for the patient based on the first 3D model and a reference point from the user skeleton, wherein the first anthropometric measurement is associated with the patient's body during the first imaging session; receiving, a second set of images of the patient captured during a second imaging session at a second point in time, wherein the second set of images of the patient comprises images of various body regions of the patient from multiple angles, and wherein the second point in time is after the first point in time; generating a second 3D model of the patient by processing the second set of images of the patient, wherein the second 3D model represents the patient's body during the second imaging session; mapping the user skeleton to the second 3D model, such that the user skeleton continues to provide static-over-time reference points for anthropometric measurements; calculating a second anthropometric measurement for the patient based on the second 3D model and the reference point from the user skeleton, wherein the second anthropometric measurement is associated with the patient's body during the second imaging session; comparing the first anthropometric measurement and the second anthropometric measurement to determine a change in the patient between the first point in time and the second point in time; and based on the change in the patient, determining an adjusted dosage of the weight loss drug administered in the medical treatment plan.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a patient and a proctor, as reflected in the specification, which states that “Accordingly, this application also describes systems, methods, and devices associated with a telehealth proctoring platform that can be used to remotely proctor, monitor, and manage a patient over the course of a medical treatment plan (e.g., a weight loss treatment program). In some embodiments, the telehealth proctoring platform may be used to initiate and establish virtual proctoring sessions between a patient and a proctor, thereby providing proctored supervision for a variety of scenarios, such as the administration of medication, performance of procedures or exercises, taking measurements or tests, and tracking of patient progress and compliance. The platform may be able to utilize the three-dimensional models and anthropometric measurements of the patient to remotely monitor and track changes to the body of a patient over time. Furthermore, other kinds of patient data such as test results may also be remotely collected from the patient (e.g., with the use of at-home blood collection devices and/or other home diagnostic devices, such as A1C tests) via telehealth proctored supervision, and the platform may be able to also utilize the test results to remotely monitor and track changes to the body of a patient over time.” (see: specification paragraph 10). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “In some embodiments, the systems disclosed herein enable a proctor and/or a clinician to guide a patient through a treatment process and/or instruct and/or monitor and/or proctor a patient through the administration of drugs, such as weight loss medication/injections, to the patient.” (see: specification paragraph 14). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Further, the recited limitations, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical relationships by calculating measurements using nodal data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “user device of a patient”, “camera of the user device”, “computer-implemented”, “system”, “at least one hardware processor”, “computer-readable non-transitory storage medium”, are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the calculating and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 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 component 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 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, Figure 32 and
Paragraph 42, where “In some embodiments, the systems, methods, and devices described herein can facilitate anthropometric measurement. In some embodiments, the system can include a mobile or web-based application configured to run on a user device. The user device can be a smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop computer, or any other personal computing device. The application can perform image-based anthropometric measurements of a user via one or more cameras of the user computing device”
Paragraph 149, where “The computer system 802 includes one or more processing units (CPU) 806, which can comprise a microprocessor. The computer system 802 further includes a physical memory 810, such as random-access memory (RAM) for temporary storage of information, a read only memory (ROM) for permanent storage of information, and a mass storage device 804, such as a backing store, hard drive, rotating magnetic disks, sol id state disks (SSD ), flash memory, phase-change memory (PCM), 3D X Point memory, diskette, or optical media storage device. Alternatively, the mass storage device can be implemented in an array of servers. Typically, the components of the computer system 802 are connected to the computer using a standards-based bus system. The bus system can be implemented using various protocols, such as Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI), Micro Channel, SCSI, Industrial Standard Architecture(ISA) and Extended ISA (EISA) architectures.”
Paragraph 148, where “Generally, the modules described herein refer to logical modules that can be combined with other modules or divided into sub-modules despite their physical organization or storage. The modules are executed by one or more computing systems and can be stored on or within any suitable computer readable medium or implemented in-whole or in-part within special designed hardware or firmware. Not all calculations, analysis, and/or optimization require the use of computer systems, though any of the above-described methods, calculations, processes, or analyses can be facilitated through the use of computers. Further, in some embodiments, process blocks described herein can be altered, rearranged, combined, and/or omitted.”
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 route, 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 claims 22-30, 32-40 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 limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 22-25, 27-30 and 32-35, 37-40 recite transmitting, receiving, predicting, and calculating healthcare data from patient image data and communicating virtual proctoring sessions on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claims 26 and 36 further recite “applying an artificial intelligence system” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the applied calculations is performed using generic computer components with a generic machine learning model executed to perform the claimed limitations) in the specification paragraph 98. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are allowable over the prior art of its parent application 18/325,812 as the claimed limitations are significantly similar. The prior art of Bosanac (US 20220319676 A1), Tran (US 20180253840 A1), Bostic (US 20210202104 A1), Blackburn (US 20220084665 A1) and Alden (WO 2020023289 A1). A further search was conducted and found the prior art of T (US 20190198169 A1) that teaches monitoring patients using virtual proctoring sessions to diagnose data, however it did not explicitly teach mapping a user skeleton to the 3D model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 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 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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights