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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
This application claims priority from Provisional Application Nos. 63899060 dated 10/14/2025 and claims priority from Provisional Application Nos. 63728934 dated 12/06/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2029 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method, a system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media for providing a notification, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) obtaining health data corresponding to a user; obtaining environmental data corresponding to a location associated with the user; determining, based on the health data and the environmental data, a symptom; determining an action in response to determining the symptom; and providing a notification to the user based on the determined action as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to obtain health data, obtain environmental data, determine a symptom, determine an action and provide a notification to the user based on the determined action in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “obtaining… obtaining… determining… determining… and providing a notification to the user” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a computing system (in claim 11) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and one or more processors (in claim 20), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 is not tied to any particular technological environment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 is not tied to any particular technological environment. Claim 11 recites the additional element of a computing system. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and one or more processors. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer components for performing generic computer functions, see Specification at para. [0066], [00155] and [00177]-[00192]) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 further recite the additional element of a device associated with the user. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to provide data (i.e., a notification)) which amounts to mere transmission of data and is a form of extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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, the additional elements of a computing system, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media and one or more processors to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device associated with the user was considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d));
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 and 12 further merely describe(s) the environmental data includes allergen data associated with the location, and the symptom is an allergy symptom associated with an allergen identified in the allergen data. Claim(s) 3 and 13 further merely describe(s) the symptom is a future symptom. Claim(s) 4 and 14 further merely describe(s) the health data includes at least one of: ophthalmic health data or data obtained from the device. Claim(s) 5 and 15 further merely describe(s) the action includes at least one of: selecting one or more products associated with the symptom, generating, based on the symptom, an order for the one or more products or generating a treatment plan based on the symptom. Claim(s) 6 and 16 further merely describe(s) obtaining at least a portion of the health data based on image data. Claim(s) 6 and 16 further include the additional element of “a camera in the device” which is interpreted to be part of the device and cannot provide practical application or significantly more. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) determining, based on the portion of the health data, the symptom. Claim(s) 8 and 17 further merely describe(s) the action includes at least one of: generating a diagnosis based on the symptom, selecting one or more products associated with the symptom, generating, based on the symptom, an order for the one or more products or generating a treatment plan based on the symptom. Claim(s) 9 and 18 further merely describe(s) the portion of the health data corresponds to one or more ophthalmic characteristics, the ophthalmic characteristics including at least one of: blink rate, eye redness, eye tearing, eye swelling, eyelid swelling, pupil characteristics, tear film characteristics or discharge characteristics. Claim(s) 10 and 19 further merely describe(s) the location associated with the user is a future location determined based on user data that corresponds to the user, the user data obtained from the device. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould (US 2021/0090700) and in further view of Franke (US 2018/0161579).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Gould discloses a method of ophthalmic health management comprising: obtaining environmental data corresponding to a location associated with the user ([0087] teaches receiving information indicative of one or more measures of environmental conditions and information indicative of user's location and [0096] teaches a user is provided with environmental conditions data, including, e.g., the pollen count in his/her area); determining, based the environmental data, a symptom ([0020] teaches recording information relating to detection of a respiratory difficulty symptom in a person and [0060] teaches predicting an individual’s allergy symptom); determining an action in response to determining the symptom ([0032] teaches assisting the individual with managing their allergy treatment in response to these environmental conditions and allergic symptoms and [0087] teaches recommending at least one action to be taken); and providing a notification to the user via a device associated with the user based on the determined action ([0087] teaches transmitting the recommended action to the communication device 5 for execution by the user.).
Gould does not explicitly disclose obtaining health data corresponding to a user and determining, based on the health data, a symptom, however Franke discloses:
obtaining health data corresponding to a user (Franke at [0061] teaches detecting one or more parameters related to blinking, such as blink rate, blink duration, and blink strength. An act of blinking may be determined based on detected movement of an upper eyelid and/or lower eyelid, and/or detected change in exposed surface area of an eye of the user (interpreted by Examiner as obtaining health data corresponding to a user)); determining, based on the health data, a symptom (Franke at [0061] teaches blinking data may be correlated to severity of dry eye symptoms. For example, in some variations, if the subject is blinking at a higher frequency, blinking for longer duration, and/or blinking more strongly, the subject may be experiencing more severe dry eye symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as determining, based on the health data, a symptom));
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for obtaining environmental data, determining a symptom based on the environmental data, determining an action and providing a notification to the user via a device associated with the user based on the determined action of Gould to incorporate obtaining health data corresponding to a user and determining a symptom based on the health data, as taught by Franke, with the motivation of providing an improved treatment for dry eye and other ocular conditions (Franke at [0005]).
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the environmental data includes allergen data associated with the location, and the symptom is an allergy symptom associated with an allergen identified in the allergen data (Gould at [0056] teaches a “Pollen count” which is an index of the amount of pollen particles in the air (interpreted by Examiner as allergen data), [0030] teaches retrieving pollen and weather measurements specific to the individual's geographic location and tracking symptoms to inform user of pollen impact on his/her well-being and [0099] teaches environmental factors (e.g., pollen, weather, pollution) (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the environmental data includes allergen data associated with the location). [0060] teaches predicting an individual’s allergy symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as the symptom is an allergy symptom associated with an allergen identified in the allergen data)).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the symptom is a future symptom (Gould at [0060] teaches predicting an individual’s allergy symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as a future symptom)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould does not explicitly disclose wherein the health data includes at least one of: ophthalmic health data or data obtained from the device, however Franke further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the health data includes at least one of: ophthalmic health data or data obtained from the device (Franke at [0061] teaches detecting one or more parameters related to blinking, such as blink rate, blink duration, and blink strength (interpreted by Examiner as wherein the health data includes ophthalmic health data)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Gould to incorporate ophthalmic health data as taught by Franke, with the motivation of providing an improved treatment for dry eye and other ocular conditions (Franke at [0005]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the action includes at least one of: selecting one or more products associated with the symptom; generating, based on the symptom, an order for the one or more products; or generating a treatment plan based on the symptom (Gould at [0064] teaches determining appropriate treatment, including over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription (Rx) products and treatments (interpreted by Examiner as the action comprising selecting one or more products associated with the symptom) and [claim 12] teaches the allergy care treatment recommendation includes a product recommendation. [0031] teaches tailoring specific treatment recommendations in response to these environmental conditions and allergic symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as the action comprising generating a treatment plan based on the symptom)).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould does not explicitly disclose obtaining at least a portion of the health data based on image data obtained by a camera in the device associated with the user, however Franke further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining at least a portion of the health data based on image data obtained by a camera in the device associated with the user (Franke at [0060] teaches capturing the eye of the subject within the image sensor's field of view. The image sensor may include a camera for capturing still images and/or video, such as optical images, infrared (IR) images, etc., [0061] teaches using camera system may track the movements of the markers to detect blinking parameters (interpreted by Examiner as obtaining at least a portion of the health data based on image data obtained by a camera in the device associated with the user)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Gould to incorporate using a camera to obtain image data as taught by Franke, with the motivation of providing an improved treatment for dry eye and other ocular conditions (Franke at [0005]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould does not explicitly disclose determining, based on the portion of the health data, the symptom, however Franke further discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising determining, based on the portion of the health data, the symptom (Franke at [0061] teaches blinking data may be correlated to severity of dry eye symptoms. For example, in some variations, if the subject is blinking at a higher frequency, blinking for longer duration, and/or blinking more strongly, the subject may be experiencing more severe dry eye symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as determining, based on the portion of health data, the symptom)).
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould further discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the action includes at least one of: generating a diagnosis based on the symptom; selecting one or more products associated with the symptom; generating, based on the symptom, an order for the one or more products; or generating a treatment plan based on the symptom (Gould at [0064] teaches determining appropriate treatment, including over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription (Rx) products and treatments and [claim 12] teaches the allergy care treatment recommendation includes a product recommendation (interpreted by Examiner as the action comprising selecting one or more products associated with the symptom) [0031] teaches tailoring specific treatment recommendations in response to these environmental conditions and allergic symptoms (interpreted by Examiner as the action comprising generating a treatment plan based on the symptom)).
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould does not explicitly disclose wherein the portion of the health data corresponds to one or more ophthalmic characteristics, the ophthalmic characteristics including at least one of: blink rate; eye redness; eye tearing; eye swelling; eyelid swelling; pupil characteristics; tear film characteristics; or discharge characteristics, however Franke further discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the portion of the health data corresponds to one or more ophthalmic characteristics, the ophthalmic characteristics including at least one of: blink rate; eye redness; eye tearing; eye swelling; eyelid swelling; pupil characteristics; tear film characteristics; or discharge characteristics (Franke at [0061] teaches one or more parameters related to blinking, such as blink rate, and [0062] teaches measuring eye redness of the subject (interpreted by Examiner as the portion of the health data corresponds to one or more ophthalmic characteristics, the ophthalmic characteristics including at least one of: blink rate or eye redness)).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Gould to incorporate health data corresponding to one or more ophthalmic characteristics, such as blink rate or eye redness as taught by Franke, with the motivation of providing an improved treatment for dry eye and other ocular conditions (Franke at [0005]).
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Gould and Franke disclose the limitation of claim 1.
Gould further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the location associated with the user is a future location determined based on user data that corresponds to the user, the user data obtained from the device (Gould at [0087] teaches receiving information from the communication device indicative of user's location (interpreted by Examiner as the device for obtaining user data), [0115] teaches treatments include changing location of a user (interpreted by Examiner as the location associated with a user is a future location)).
REGARDING CLAIMS 11-20
Claims 11-20 are analogous to Claims 1-10 thus Claims 11-20 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claims 1-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Wang (US 2022/0248950) discloses ophthalmic device. Parkkinen (US 2018/0150896) discloses method and system for recommending skin care products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights