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 an application filed on 12/03/2025. Claims 1-20 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.
Rejection 1: Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,512,220, issued December 30, 2025 from application 18/481,312 — the immediate parent of this application. No terminal disclaimer directed to US 12,512,220 is of record in this application.
The pending independent claims are the patented independent claims with limitations removed. Patented claim 1 reads:
“An engagement and care support platform (“ECSP”) computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with a chatbot and at least one memory device, the ECSP computer device in communication with a first client device associated with a senior user and a second client device associated with a caregiver, the at least one processor … programmed to: transmit data configured to cause a verbal prompt to be presented via the second client device to the caregiver, the verbal prompt requesting an audible input from the caregiver, the audible input including one or more reminder parameters to create a reminder message for the senior user; continuously monitor for a caregiver user interaction with the chatbot using the second client device including the audible input in response to the verbal prompt; in response to receiving the audible input from the caregiver in response to the verbal prompt, create the reminder message from the caregiver audible input including reminder message content; and provide the reminder message to the chatbot, wherein the reminder message causes the chatbot to audibly present the reminder message content to the senior user via the first client device.”
Pending claim 1 recites the same subject matter with three clauses deleted, and each deleted clause is presented as a pending dependent claim:
Clause deleted from patented claim 1
Restored by pending claim
“the audible input including one or more reminder parameters to create a reminder message for the senior user”
Claim 3 — “the audible input includes one or more reminder parameters to create the reminder message for the first user”
“continuously monitor for a caregiver user interaction with the chatbot using the second client device including the audible input in response to the verbal prompt”
Claim 2 — same language, “caregiver” replaced by “user”
“a first client device associated with a senior user and a second client device associated with a caregiver”
Claim 4 — “the first user is a senior user, and … the second user is a caregiver”
Pending claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 taken together therefore recite patented claim 1 in its entirety. Pending claim 1 standing alone is a genus that wholly encompasses the patented species. A pending claim that is broader than, and fully encompasses, a patented claim is not patentably distinct from it; the patented claim would infringe the pending claim were the pending claim to issue. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
The remaining pending claims map onto the patented claims as follows:
Pending
Patented
Basis
5
Claim 2
Identical but for “senior user” becoming “first user”: “instruct the first client device to present the reminder message content on a screen associated with the first client device.”
6
Claim 5
Identical but for “caregiver” becoming “second user”: instruct the second client device to present an interface to enter the reminder message content, at least a portion displayed on a screen of that device.
7
Claim 6
Patented claim 6 recites monitoring for “a response”; pending claim 7 recites “an audible response.” Narrowing the species of response is not a patentable distinction where the claim depends from a broader independent claim.
8
Claim 23
Patented claim 23 is the method counterpart of patented claim 1. The relationship of pending claim 8 to it is the same as that of pending claim 1 to patented claim 1.
9-14
Claims 23, 24, 26, 27
Same pattern as pending claims 2-7.
15
Claim 23
No computer-readable medium claim issued in the patent. A medium storing instructions that perform a patented method is not patentably distinct from that method; the difference is one of statutory category only.
16-20
Claims 23, 24, 26, 27
Same pattern as pending claims 2-7.
Rejection 2: Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,380,4390, issued July 5, 2022 from application 17/520,472. No terminal disclaimer directed to US 12,512,220 is of record in this application.
Claim 1 of that patent recites the same architecture together with a triggering event: “identify a triggering event associated with the senior user has occurred; transmit data configured to cause a first message to be presented using the second client device, the first message reporting the triggering event; transmit additional data configured to cause an audio prompt to be presented to the caregiver using the second client device, the audio prompt requesting a verbal input from the caregiver … and provide the reminder message to the chatbot, the chatbot configured to audibly present the reminder message to the senior user via the first client device.” The pending claims omit the triggering event and are therefore broader in that respect while identical in all others.
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.
Step 1 — Statutory category
Claims 1-7 recite a computer system and fall within the machine category. Claims 8-14 recite a method and fall within the process category. Claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and fall within the manufacture category. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A Prong One — The claims recite a judicial exception
Stripped of the hardware, claim 1 recites: ask a person for a spoken message; make a reminder out of what that person says; and speak the reminder aloud to a second person. That is a certain method of organizing human activity. It manages an interaction between two people — one person arranging for something to be conveyed to another — and, where the recipient is a senior and the speaker a caregiver, it manages personal behavior and relationships. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), which lists “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” within the grouping.
The pre-computer analogue is exact and long-standing. A family member telephones an answering service; the operator asks what message the caller would like to leave; the operator writes it down; at the appointed time the operator telephones the relative and reads the message aloud. Every act of claim 1 is present. Substituting a chatbot for the operator does not change what is being done.
In the alternative, the step of creating a reminder message from an audible input recites a mental process. Hearing a spoken request and reducing it to a note is observation and evaluation of the sort a person performs in the mind or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Office relies principally on the organizing-human-activity characterization.
Step 2A Prong Two — The exception is not integrated into a practical application
The additional elements beyond the exception are: at least one processor; at least one memory device; a chatbot; a first client device; a second client device; and the transmission of data between them.
Each is recited generically, and applicant’s own specification confirms that each is an item obtained rather than built. The specification states that a client device may be “a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a smart home device (e.g., AMAZON ALEXA, AMAZON ECHO, GOOGLE HOME, and/or RING doorbells), a phablet, wearable electronics … or other web-based connectable equipment or mobile devices.” It further states that the client device for the user “may be a smart home device (e.g., AMAZON ALEXA) because the user may prefer interacting with client device 104 through audio commands,” and that the caregiver’s device “may be a smartphone.” These are commercially available products named by brand.
The chatbot is treated the same way. The specification states that the computing device “may be in communication with chatbot server 106 and leverage the chatbot functionality thereof to implement at least some of the functionality disclosed herein.” The chatbot is an outside service whose existing functionality is leveraged. No speech-recognition algorithm, no natural-language architecture, and no dialogue-management structure is claimed or described. The claim recites the result — that the chatbot “audibly present[s]” the content — without any mechanism for achieving it.
Reciting generic computer components to carry out the exception is no more than an instruction to apply it using a computer as a tool, which does not integrate. See MPEP 2106.05(f); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). The transmission of data between the two client devices and the platform is likewise insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the claims improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The improvement the specification identifies is to the coordination of care — helping seniors engage with their schedules and helping caregivers coordinate with one another. That is an improvement in the organization of human care, not in any machine. Choosing speech as the input and output modality rather than text does not supply one; it selects a channel, which is a matter of how information is gathered and presented. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2A — The dependent claims
Claims 2, 9 and 16 — continuous monitoring for a user interaction with the chatbot. This is data gathering: keeping a channel open so that input can be received when it arrives. Necessary data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). It is also the ordinary operating condition of any voice-activated device, which must listen in order to be spoken to.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 — the audible input includes one or more reminder parameters. This narrows the content of the information the second user speaks. The content of information is not an additional element capable of integrating an exception; it is part of the exception. Specifying that the caregiver states, for example, a time along with the message describes what is said, not how any device operates.
Claims 4 and 11 — the first user is a senior user and the second user is a caregiver. This confines the abstract idea to a particular field of use and a particular class of participants. Limiting an abstract idea to a field of use does not integrate it. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010).
Claims 5, 12 and 18 — present the reminder message content on a screen of the first client device. Displaying the result of the process is the paradigm of insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978).
Claims 6, 13 and 19 — present an interface on the second client device for entering the content, a portion being displayed. A generic data-entry interface, recited as to its purpose rather than its construction. Receiving input through a screen is conventional computer activity and, as claimed, adds a second route to the same information the verbal prompt already gathers.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 — continuously monitor the first client device for an audible response to the reminder. Data gathering again, on the receiving end. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B — No inventive concept
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
Individually, a processor that executes instructions, a memory that stores them, client devices that receive speech and emit sound, a network link that carries data between them, and a third-party chatbot service that converts text to speech are each performing their ordinary and expected functions. The evidentiary basis is the specification itself, which names Amazon Alexa, Amazon Echo and Google Home as the client devices and describes the chatbot as functionality of a separate server being leveraged. That is applicant’s own statement that these components are well-understood, routine and conventional. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018); MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2).
As an ordered combination, the sequence recited — ask, receive, compose, deliver — is the only order in which a message can be relayed. An ordering that merely follows the logic of the underlying idea supplies no inventive concept. See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geman, et al. (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Fountaine, et al. (US 2018/0325469 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Geman teaches a computer system …, the computer system comprising at least one processor …and at least one memory device (¶ 0064: “monitoring platform 120 can include memory 310, one or more processors 320, communications module 330, records module 340, message module 350, reporting module 360, natural language processor 370, and graphical user interface (GUI) generation module 380.”), the computer system in communication with a first client device associated with a first user (¶ 0074: “database server 540 can request that call and device server 550 … generates a reminder call or signal to one or more specified phone numbers and/or interactive monitoring devices 560. Interactive monitoring devices 560 can prompt the patient 570 for a response.”) and a second client device associated with a second user (¶ 0072: “caregiver 410 can use user device 420 to access a web-based portal for monitoring platform 120 … Caregiver 410 can then enter, edit, or delete information regarding a medication adherence schedule which can be stored in database server 440.”), the at least one processor configured to: transmit data configured to cause a verbal prompt to be presented via the second client device to the second user, the verbal prompt requesting an audible input from the second user (¶ 0090: “the monitoring platform may allow a telephone call to be scheduled to an individual that would like to record a message. The telephone call can be scheduled to occur immediately or at a future date and time. When the individual answers the telephone call, the individual can be prompted to record a message.” The platform initiates the contact and prompts the caregiver, by voice, to speak); in response to receiving the audible input, create a reminder message from the audible input including reminder message content (¶ 0090: continuing: “The message can then be added to the account. The message can then be selected and associated with a medication dispensing schedule or given an independent delivery schedule to provide personalized reminders to the patient to take their medication and/or perform another medical activity.” Geman ¶0089 is to the same effect for the recorded-and-emailed message); and provide the reminder message… (¶ 0007: “The monitoring platform can generate a customized reminder message that includes a recording (e.g., video or audio) of an individual trusted by the patient reminding the patient to adhere to the dispensing schedule.”; ¶ 0076: “deliver an automated communication (e.g., a personalized pre-recorded voice or video message).”.
German does not explicitly teach …for generating and providing an audible message via a chatbot, …in communication with the chatbot; …to the chatbot wherein the reminder message causes the chatbot to audibly present the reminder message content to the first user via the first client device. Fountaine teaches …for generating and providing an audible message via a chatbot, …in communication with the chatbot; …to the chatbot wherein the reminder message causes the chatbot to audibly present the reminder message content to the first user via the first client device (¶ 0003: “a voice controlled automated assistance service such as Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, and Apple Siri.”; ¶ 0007: “a network interface controller providing communicative coupling to at least one instance of a voice controlled assistance service,”; ¶ 0014: “an assistance device communicatively coupled to a voice controlled assistance service over a network.” ¶0065: “the caregiver 130 may send a text message from the mobile device of the caregiver 130 to the assistance device 200 that converts into a speech communication to the user 100 via the speaker 204.”). For the motivation to combine Fountain with Geman, the two references address the same situation from the two sides of it. Geman ¶ 0004 is concerned that “well over fifty percent of individuals sixty-five and over admit forgetting to take their medications” and that “it is almost impossible for caregivers to be constantly present at their patient’s home.” Fountaine ¶ 0002 states that “a caregiving organization that provides care to a user within a caregiving environment may need to monitor the user for wellbeing, health, and/or for the safety of the user,” and that it “may be difficult for the caregiving organization … to determine how the user is doing.” They are analogous art under MPEP 2141.01(a) in field and in problem.
Fountaine supplies its own reason for routing the message through a voice assistant rather than a telephone call. Fountaine ¶ 0003: such a service “may be especially helpful for persons who are impaired, elderly, under treatment in a medical facility, or undergoing home care,” because “the user may more easily interface with technology by using their voice which may be a natural way of communicating for the user,” and the user “may therefore be comforted by voice communications or find companionship with the automated voice assistance service.” Substituting Fountaine’s voice endpoint for Geman’s telephone call is the simple substitution of one known delivery channel for another to obtain the predictable result of the senior hearing the reminder, for the reason Fountaine itself gives. See MPEP 2143(I)(B); see also 2143(I)(G).
A reasonable expectation of success attends it because nothing upstream changes. Geman ¶ 0090 already holds the caregiver’s message on the account with a delivery schedule, and the payload is already content intended to be played aloud; only the endpoint that plays it changes. Fountaine ¶ 0065 shows that endpoint already accepting a message from a caregiver’s device and speaking it to the cared-for user.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 3, Geman teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the audible input includes one or more reminder parameters to create the reminder message for the first user (¶ 0088: “The user can label the call, set the time of delivery of the message, set who will monitor the message and what alert they will receive, determine the start and end date of the message, and at what interval it will be delivered.” Each is a reminder parameter accompanying the recorded content.).
Claims 10 and 17 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 4, Geman teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the first user is a senior user, and wherein the second user is a caregiver associated with the senior user (¶ 0089: “caregivers associated with a patient.”; ¶0004: “well over fifty percent of individuals sixty-five and over admit forgetting to take their medications … it is almost impossible for caregivers to be constantly present at their patient’s home.”).
Claim 11 recites the method for performing the same steps, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 6, Geman teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to instruct the second client device to present to the second user an interface to enter the reminder message content, and wherein at least a portion of the reminder message content is displayed on a screen of the second client device (¶ 0088: “a user of the monitoring service may record a message (e.g., using a microphone and an application of a computing device for recording) by clicking on Set A Reminder in the Person Cared For/Reminders tab … By clicking on the Record a Reminder button at the bottom a user can record a message in the record window. When satisfied with the recording, the user can save it.” The interface is displayed on the caregiver’s device and is the means of entering the content.).
Claims 13 and 19 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 7, Geman teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to continuously monitor the first client device for a user interaction with the chatbot to receive an audible response to the reminder message (¶ 0048: “After the personal recorded message has been presented to the patient, the patient can be prompted to respond. Their response (e.g., by touchtone or voice), or lack thereof, to the automated call can be recorded and tracked.”; ¶ 0088: the Adherence tab “will show that the person cared for has affirmatively responded by displaying a green check mark, that they did not respond by a red X.”).
Claims 14 and 20 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geman, et al. (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Fountaine, et al. (US 2018/0325469 A1) in further view of Devaraj, et al. (US 2018/0061402 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Geman does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to continuously monitor for a user interaction with the chatbot using the second client device including the audible input in response to the verbal prompt. Devaraj teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to continuously monitor for a user interaction with the chatbot using the second client device including the audible input in response to the verbal prompt (¶ 0071 describes a “communication alteration” that removes “the need for a wakeword portion and a command so spoken audio only needs to include message content,” which presupposes a device listening without a trigger; ¶¶ 0076-0077 make that alteration conditional on a trigger such as a threshold number of message exchanges, after which the server “reconfigures utterances from the first/second speech-controlled device to not require presence of a wakeword portion,” and the device “may output an indication representing the device is ‘listening’ in an attempt to capture message content.”). For the motivation to combine Devaraj with Geman, Devaraj’s field is the relay of a spoken message from one person to another through their respective voice endpoints — the same relay Geman performs between caregiver and patient. Devaraj ¶ 0002 states where the technique belongs: “Speech processing may be used by computers, hand-held devices, telephone computer systems, kiosks, and a wide variety of other devices to improve human-computer interactions.” Geman’s delivery channel is a telephone computer system — the scheduled call of ¶0090 — so applying Devaraj’s speech processing to it falls within Devaraj’s own statement of its application. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Devaraj’s Abstract states: “In response to determining the occurrence of an escalation event, such as repeated messages between the same two devices, the system may automatically change a mode of a speech-controlled device, such as no longer requiring a wakeword, no longer requiring an indication of a desired recipient.” Geman’s reminders are repeated messages between the same two parties by their very design: ¶ 0088 lets the caregiver “determine the start and end date of the message, and at what interval it will be delivered.” A person of ordinary skill applying Devaraj to Geman would therefore meet Devaraj’s escalation condition in the ordinary course of operating Geman — the same caregiver messaging the same patient on a set interval — and would arrive at the wakeword-free listening state of ¶¶ 0076-0077, in which the server “reconfigures utterances from the first/second speech-controlled device to not require presence of a wakeword portion” and the device “may output an indication representing the device is ‘listening’ in an attempt to capture message content.” The benefit Devaraj identifies is the removal of ceremony from a channel used repeatedly between the same two people, so that “spoken audio only needs to include message content” (¶ 0071). That is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claims 9 and 16 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geman, et al. (US 2016/0106627 A1) in view of Fountaine, et al. (US 2018/0325469 A1) in further view of Rufo, et al. (US 2018/0342329 A1).
With regards to claim 5, Geman does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to instruct the first client device to present the reminder message content on a screen associated with the first client device. Rufo teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to instruct the first client device to present the reminder message content on a screen associated with the first client device (figure 10 (229)). For the motivation to combine Rufo with Geman, Geman ¶ 0004 states that “well over fifty percent of individuals sixty-five and over admit forgetting to take their medications,” and Rufo ¶ 0012 gives the same diagnosis — of the reasons people fail to take medication properly, “most commonly, they simply forget to do so.” Rufo ¶ 0022 states that the invention provides “a system for aged or senior care” and, in an alternative embodiment, “a system for persons having memory or cognitive challenges due to mental impairment. TBI, dementia, or other conditions.” The two are analogous art under MPEP 2141.01(a) both as to field of endeavor and as to the problem addressed.
More to the point, Rufo does not merely supply a screen — it teaches presenting the very same reminder through the screen and the speaker together. Rufo ¶ 0177: “when the time associated with a reminder arrives, a reminder window 236 is displayed … Moreover, a voice message (or other audio alert) associated with the reminder 236 may be played over speakers 157 at the premises controlled by the HAPPIE home unit 103.” Rufo ¶ 0182 states the modes are freely combinable: “Unlimited medication calendar events can be delivered in any combination of text alerts 252, audio file alerts, and video file alerts 254.” Rufo ¶ 0114 describes the unit as communicating with the resident “by displaying text messages, text alerts, text reminders, video messages, and live streaming video.” Adding a visual presentation of Geman’s audio reminder is therefore not a modification about which the art is silent; it is the arrangement Rufo actually describes.
Rufo also states the benefit. The medication module that generates the on-screen reminder window is “designed to eliminate the common errors, omission and challenges a patient or resident may have in being sure he or she takes the exact correct medication by day, time of day, and dosage to greatly minimize the effects of under or over medicating one’s self” (¶ 0182). A person of ordinary skill reading Geman, whose reminder is audio only and therefore gone the moment it finishes playing, would have been motivated to add Rufo’s persistent on-screen presentation of the same content so that a senior who did not hear it, or heard it and forgot it, still has it. That is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(G); see also MPEP 2143(I)(A), the combination being of prior art elements according to known methods to yield no more than predictable results.
A reasonable expectation of success attends the combination because nothing in the way Geman creates, schedules or stores the reminder has to change. Geman ¶0090 already holds the caregiver’s message on the account with a delivery schedule, and Geman ¶0048 already tracks whether the patient responded once it has been presented. Displaying the content is an additional output of material the system already possesses at the moment it already acts.
Claims 12 and 18 recite the method and computer-readable storage medium for performing the same steps, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramaci (US 2018/0211509 A1) which discloses a notification system includes a database network, the database network configured to store a medication schedule of a patient; a voice translation service in communication with the database network; and a notification device comprising a processor configured to wirelessly communicate with at least one of database network and the voice translation service, the processor contained in a housing, the housing configured for attachment to the patient, a portion of the housing comprising a display panel; and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores executable instructions for causing the processor to provide a visual reminder, at the display panel, of a medication event in the patient's medication schedule, transmit to the voice translation service a voice signal corresponding to an utterance of the patient; and receive from the voice translation service a verbal response to the utterance.
Narasimhan, et al. (US 2016/0342767 A1) which discloses a method of supporting user adherence to a medication regimen includes storing received medication information associated with one or more medications using a patient wearable device and a coordinated care platform. The method also includes displaying identification and dosing information associated with the medications, generating a notification indicating that the identification information is being displayed, monitoring a response input indicating that the medications have been administered. For each of the one or more medications di splayed, the method includes generating a medication status describing that either (i) the medication has been administered or (ii) the response has not been received. The method further includes generating a reminder notification when the medication status indicates that the response has not been received. The method may further include gathering behavioral data points associated with the user for submission to the coordinated care platform, which performs predictive analytics based on the data points.
Perez, Sarah, “’Elderly Alexa’ helps families care for their remote loved ones via voice”, https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/14/elderly-alexa-helps-family-care-for-their-remote-loved-ones-via-voice/, 05/14/2017 which discloses using an Amazon Echo to provide medication reminders to elderly parents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joey Burgess whose telephone number is (571)270-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9-6.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702 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.
/JOSEPH D BURGESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights