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 12/12/2025. Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined.
Priority
The claim of priority is acknowledged. The specification at ¶0001 recites that this application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/266,454, filed 13 November 2023, which claims the benefit of PCT/IB2021/000858, filed 13 December 2021, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/124,466, filed 11 December 2020. The earliest effective filing date available to claim 1 is therefore 11 December 2020, and that date is used as the critical date throughout this action.
Drawings
Figures 1-14 are objected to because they are of insufficient quality that would not allow for infinite reproduction. The Examiner suggests the Applicant change the drawings to simply black and white and eliminate the greyscale to make the drawings clearer. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 is 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept — i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claim recites a method which is included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Stripped of the instruction to use a processor, the claim recites receiving a report that a person did or did not do a scheduled health task, writing that report into a running list of the person’s past reports, deciding whether the report belongs in the “done” group or the “not done” group, putting it in that group, and dividing the number of done items by the total to produce a percentage. Deciding which of two groups an observation belongs to, and computing a percentage, are acts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and are mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The same steps also manage personal behavior and a person’s compliance with a health regimen prescribed by another, and so are a method of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only element beyond the abstract idea is “a processor,” recited four times and never described as anything other than a general-purpose one. The specification confirms this: it describes the processing as performed on ordinary computing equipment and describes no improvement to the operation of any computer. Reciting a generic processor to perform steps otherwise performable mentally amounts to applying the exception using a computer as a tool, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no particular machine, no transformation of an article, and no improvement in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a), (b) and (c).
STEP 2B
The claim does not amount to significantly more. The processor performs no function beyond receiving data, storing data, sorting data into two bins and computing a ratio. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and performing repetitive calculations have each been recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional element adds nothing that is not routine.
Under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the assertion at Step 2B that the computer functions are well-understood, routine and conventional must be supported. The support here is the applied reference itself: Lake, published more than twenty months before the critical date, performs the identical receiving, storing and percentage-computing functions on a conventional server system. Citing an applied reference for this purpose is an accepted form of Berkheimer evidence. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lake, et al. (US 2019/0019573 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Lake teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a processor, a compliance signal from a user indicating a status of a scheduled health event (¶0017: a “server system configured to receive and transmit data via a communications network to, respectively from users including patients and health care professionals, the server system further configured to process and store data related to patient care.” The data received is identified at ¶0102: “The first data may include data selected from: the type of medication administered, the dose of medication administered, the mode of administration, the time of administration, the date of administration and the frequency of administration.” That data reports the status of a scheduled administration and is received by a processing unit (¶¶0100, 0129)), 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 (¶0074 states the two states in its own terms: there is “a delay between the medication taken or missed and a measurable or perceived outcome effect of the patient.” A report that the medication was taken is the confirmation signal; a report that it was missed is the omission signal. The limitation is an alternative limitation satisfied by either member. See MPEP 2173.05(h).); 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 (¶0131: the treatment regimen adherence data “is a correlation between pre-determined treatment regimen data and actual treatment regimen data,” the actual data being the accumulated record of administrations. ¶0073 the adherence report is compared “over a period of time,” and ¶0075 “[t]he time scale may display adherence data and patient outcome reports per hour, day, week, month, year or any combination thereof.” An adherence figure spanning a month or a year is necessarily computed from a plurality of past administration events, each associated with a past scheduled dose.); determining, by the processor, an appropriate compliance category in the user summary for the received 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 (¶0132: “the processing unit is operable to calculate the adherence to a pre-determined treatment regimen by processing the first data. The processed first data is calculated by comparing the first data to the third data.” ¶0133: “the adherence to a pre-determined treatment regimen is calculated by comparing the actual treatment regimen data to the pre-determined treatment regimen data.” To compare an actual administration against a prescribed one is to determine, for that event, whether it adhered or did not. Those two outcomes are the completion category and the omission category. See MPEP 2112.); 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, and wherein the received compliance signal is placed in the omission category in response to the received compliance signal comprising the omission signal (¶0135: “an adherence of 100% indicates that the patient has completely adhered to the pre-determined treatment regimen, while an adherence lower than 100% indicates that the patient did not completely adhere to the pre-determined treatment regimen, for example the patient may not have injected all prescribed doses.” A figure that falls below 100% because particular doses were not injected can only be produced by counting each prescribed dose into one of two tallies, injected or not injected. That is the claimed assignment. See MPEP 2112); and determining, by the processor, a compliance rate for the user, wherein the compliance rate comprises a completion percentage of 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 (¶0136: “The UID display unit may display the processed first data as a percentage of adherence to the third data (i.e. the pre-determined treatment regimen).” The third data is the prescribed regimen, defined at ¶0130 as including “pre-determined time of administration, pre-determined date of administration and pre-determined frequency of administrations.” A percentage of adherence to the prescribed regimen is the doses taken divided by the doses prescribed, and the doses prescribed are the doses taken plus the doses missed.), wherein the scheduled health event is at least one of a scheduled activity event, a mental health event, and a lifestyle habit commitment (¶¶0039-0040, 0129-0130, event is a pre-determined schedule for taking of drug [scheduled activity event]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mok (US 11,036,831 B1) which discloses systems, methods, and apparatuses for managing patient adherence to prescription medication are disclosed. An adherence manager may receive lab values and prescription fill information from laboratories and pharmacies, respectively. The adherence manager may calculate an adherence score and a lab value score based on the received information. The scores may be combined into a single score. The adherence manager may determine if an intervention with the patient is desirable based at least in part on the adherence score, lab value score, or combined score. The adherence manager may flag the patient, send an alert to a clinician, or send an alert to the patient. The adherence manager may solicit information from the patient and transmit the information to the clinician. The type of intervention initiated by the adherence manager may be based at least in part on the adherence score, lab value score, or combined score.
Mousseau, et al. (US 2021/0134421 A1) which discloses systems and methods for controlling and tracking computer devices using a secure communication path between a central database and a device control-file watchdog program. One or more device control-files can be generated to control, limit and track a computer device using a device control-file watchdog program. The system sets limits on the computer device to ensure the user operating the computer device stays within a restricted set of usage limitations. The device control-file watchdog program protects the one or more device control-files and additionally can report on all activities performed by the computer device to the central database.
CoachAI: A Conversational Agent Assisted Health Coaching Platform, Ahmed Fadhil and Gianluca Schiavo and Yunlong Wang, 2019 which discloses poor lifestyle represents a health risk factor and is the leading cause of morbidity and chronic conditions. The impact of poor lifestyle can be significantly altered by individual behavior change. Although the current shift in healthcare towards a long lasting modifiable behavior, however, with increasing caregiver workload and individuals' continuous needs of care, there is a need to ease caregiver's work while ensuring continuous interaction with users. This paper describes the design and validation of CoachAI, a conversational agent assisted health coaching system to support health intervention delivery to individuals and groups. CoachAI instantiates a text based healthcare chatbot system that bridges the remote human coach and the users. This research provides three main contributions to the preventive healthcare and healthy lifestyle promotion: (1) it presents the conversational agent to aid the caregiver; (2) it aims to decrease caregiver's workload and enhance care given to users, by handling (automating) repetitive caregiver tasks; and (3) it presents a domain independent mobile health conversational agent for health intervention delivery. We will discuss our approach and analyze the results of a one month validation study on physical activity, healthy diet and stress management.
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