www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/556,860
`
`12/20/2021
`
`SHYAM KISHORE
`
`SYP340667US01US
`
`8764
`
`CHIP LAW GROUP
`505 N. LAKE SHORE DRIVE
`SUITE 250
`CHICAGO, IL 60611
`
`BARTLEY, KENNETH
`
`3684
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/30/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @chiplawgroup.com
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`sonydocket @evalueserve.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-2,4-7,10-16 and 18-21 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-2,4-7,10-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241220
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/556,860
`KISHORE etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`KENNETH BARTLEY
`3684
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)™) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 20 September 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined
`
`underthefirst inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`1.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), wasfiled in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
`
`September 20, 2024 has been entered.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 3, 8, 9, and 17
`
`have been canceled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-16, and 18-21 are pending
`
`and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-16, and 18-21 have
`
`been considered but are moot because the new groundof rejection does not rely on any
`
`reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
`
`challenged in the argument. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 3
`
`Applicant_argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 11 of Remarks:
`
`REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`It was alleged at page 11 of the Office Action that “[c]laims 1-20 are
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimedinvention is directed to an
`abstract idea without significantly more.”
`
`Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject
`Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A-Prong 1): the features of amended
`independent claim 1 recites “[a] first electronic device, comprising: ... circuitry
`configured to ...
`transmit the
`received userprofile information to a server via a
`network... receive, from the server, a set of health templates based on the
`received userprofile information associated with the first user, wherein the
`received set of health templates, from a plurality of health templates stored in the
`server, is based on an application of a second artificial intelligence (Al) model on
`the transmitted user profile information ... determine, by one or more sensors
`associated with thefirst electronic device, a set of health parameters of thefirst
`user and a setof activities of the first user, based on the selected first health
`template ... determine a set of health recommendations associated with thefirst
`user, wherein the set of health recommendations is determined based on: ... an
`application of a first Al model on the selected first health template ... setup a set
`of periodic auto-reminders, associated with
`the determined setof activities for
`the first user ... generateafirst notification associated with a first activity of the
`set of activities for the first user based on the set of periodic auto-
`reminders...
`control the display device to display the generated first notification.”
`
`The aboveis reciting abstract elements. Recall, “additional elements” cannot
`include a judicial exception.
`
`See also the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility examples provided by the Office
`regarding artificial intelligence, where using Al at a high level of generality was
`not enough.
`
`Further, the Applicant submits that the features of amended independent
`claim 1 cannot be classified as the alleged abstract idea under “mental process”
`or “certain methods of organizing human activity”, because the claimed subject
`matter instead of merely “concept performed in the mind of the person or with
`pen and paper” or “manage personal behavior and teaching’, the features of
`amended independent claim 1 recites “circuitry configured to: ... setup a set of
`periodic auto-reminders, associated with the determined set of activities for the
`first user, “generate a first notification associated withafirst activity of the set of
`activities for the first user based on the set of periodic auto- reminders’, and
`“control the display device to display the generatedfirst notification’ which the
`Applicant submits “cannot be practically performed in the human mind orwith
`pen or paper” or “by organizing a human activity”. Therefore, the features of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 4
`
`amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept
`similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a method for
`organizing humanactivity or mental process or mental process.
`
`Respectfully, using a generic computer has been shown to be abstract under
`mental processes. Further, claim elements are examined to determineif they
`recite abstract ideas.
`If any claim element is found to be abstract, the claims are
`considered abstract.
`
`From MPEP 2106.04(a)...
`“Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1)
`identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the
`examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the
`identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideaslisted
`above. The groupings of abstract ideas, and their relationship to the body of judicial
`precedent, are further discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
`(s2106.html#ch2100_d29a1b_13ae3_321).”
`See also the July 2024 SME whereclaims using Al were found to include mental
`process limitations (e.g., Example 47, Claim 2).
`
`From Claim 2 Example 47...
`A method of using an artificial neural network (ANN) comprising:
`(a) receiving, at a computer, continuous training data;
`
`(b) discretizing, by the computer, the continuous training data to generate input data;
`
`(c) training, by the computer, the ANN based on the input data and a selected training
`algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a
`backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm;
`
`(d) detecting one or more anomalies in a data set using the trained ANN;
`
`(e) analyzing the one or more detected anomalies using the trained ANN to generate
`anomaly data; and
`
`(f) outputting the anomaly data from the trained ANN.
`
`“Here, steps (b), (d), and (e) fall within the mental process grouping of abstract
`ideas, and steps (b) and (c) fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of
`abstract ideas. Limitations (b)-(e) are considered together as a single abstract idea for
`further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).” (pg. 8 of July 2024 SME)
`
`Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject
`Matter Eligibility Guidance, even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying
`the Prong One of such analysis, assuming arguendo,
`to which the Applicant does
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 5
`
`not concede, the Applicant submits the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a
`practical implementation.
`For example, the amended independent claim 1
`recites “setup a set of periodic auto- reminders, associated with the determined
`set of activities for the first user, based on the selected first health template...
`generateafirst notification associated with a first activity of the set of activities for
`the first user based on the set of periodic auto-reminders ... control the display
`device to display the generated first notification.”
`
`The Applicant’s Specification describes that “the circuitry 202 of thefirst
`electronic device 102 may be configured to setup a set of periodic auto-
`reminders, associated with a set of activities for the first user 118, based on the
`selected first health template. The set of periodic auto-reminders may be setup
`for the set of activities (i.e. that may be recommendedto thefirst user 118 based
`on the selected first health template), to achieve health goals and maintain a
`healthy lifestyle for the first user 118. Conventionally, a significant manual effort
`may be required by a user to set periodic reminders associated with activities
`and health goals of the user. For example, manual selection of activities (such
`as, a walk activity, a waterintake, etc.), time periods (for example, certain
`number of minutes, hours or days) for the reminders, and manual inputs of health
`goals (such as, a step count or a sleep duration) may be required. The set-up of
`periodic reminders based on such manual user inputs may require significant
`time and effort for users, which may not be appreciated by the users. This may
`also cause user churn, wherein the users may stop use of conventional personal
`health assistant system/application on corresponding device and maylook for
`other alternative solutions.
`In contrast, the disclosed first electronic device 102
`may be configured to dynamically setup the set of periodic auto- reminders for
`the recommendedset of activities with minimal user inputs. Such periodic auto-
`reminders may be associated with the set of activities for the first user 118 and
`may be set based on the selectedfirst health template ... The first electronic
`device 102 may further control the display device 116 to display the generated
`first notification, and the generated second notification or other notification
`related to other activities, reminders, and/or monitored health conditions of the
`first user 118.” See at F§ [0087] and [0103] of the Specification, as originally
`filed. Therefore, the claimed features describes “setup a_
`set of periodic auto-
`reminders, associated with the determined setof activities for the first user’, and
`“generateafirst notification associated with a first activity”. Accordingly, the
`Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes a practical
`implementation and has thus established a clear nexus betweenthe claim
`language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception.
`
`Automating a manual process is using computer to do what computers do.
`
`From MPEP 2106.05(a)I...
`“Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an
`improvement in computer-functionality:..
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 6
`
`iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to
`process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake
`Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir.2017) or
`speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going
`to or calling each lenderandfilling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow,
`Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);..”
`
`From Applicant’s specification...
`“At 516, auto reminders may be setup atthefirst electronic device 102. In an
`embodiment, the circuitry 202 of the first electronic device 102 may be configured to
`setup a set of periodic auto-reminders, associated with a set of activities for the first
`user 118, based on the selected first health template. The set of periodic auto-
`reminders may be setup for the set of activities (i.e. that may be recommendedto the
`first user 118 based on the selected first health template), to achieve health goals and
`maintain a healthy lifestyle for the first user 118. Conventionally, a significant manual
`effort may be required by a user to set periodic reminders associated with
`activities and health goals of the user. For example, manual selection of activities
`(such as, a walk activity, a water intake, etc.), time periods (for example, certain
`numberof minutes, hours or days) for the reminders, and manual inputs of health
`goals (such as, a step count or a sleep duration) may be required. The set-up of
`periodic reminders based on such manual user inputs may require significant time
`and effort for users, which may not be appreciated by the users. This may also
`cause user churn, wherein the users may stop use of conventional personal health
`assistant system/application on corresponding device and maylookfor other alternative
`solutions.
`In contrast, the disclosed first electronic device 102 may be configured to
`dynamically setup the set of periodic auto-reminders for the recommended setof
`activities with minimal user inputs. Such periodic auto-reminders may be associated
`with the set of activities for the first user 118 and may be set based on the selectedfirst
`health template. For example, the periodic auto-reminders may be associated with the
`set of activities including, but not limited to, a water intake activity, a food intake activity,
`a sleep activity, a step count, a meditation activity, a yoga activity, a physical exercise, a
`breathing exercise, a stretching exercise, a sedentary task, a walk, arun, ajog, a
`cycling activity, a swimming activity, a work-out activity, or a listening to music activity.”
`[0087}
`
`The aboveis teaching automating a manual process. There is no teaching or
`indication above that computer technologyitself is being improved by
`automating reminders.
`
`The features of amended independent claim 1 describe an unconventional
`activity using conventional elements which “setup a set of periodic auto-
`reminders, associated with a set of activities for the first user 118, based on the
`selected first health template’, and “generateafirst notification associated with a
`first activity of the set of activities for the first user 118 based on the set periodic
`auto-reminders.” Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that taking all the
`claim elements of independent claim individually, and in combination, amended
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 7
`
`independent claim 1 as a whole amountto significantly more than the alleged
`abstract idea.
`
`Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent
`claim 1 recite patent eligible subject matter.
`
`Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent
`claims 16 and 20 recite features similar to amended independent claim 1 and,
`are therefore, patent eligible for reasons similar to those presented above with
`respect to amended independent claim 1. Further, dependent claims 2, 4-7, 10-
`15, 18, and 19 recite patent eligible subject matter based at least on the
`dependence on amended independent claims 1 or 16.
`
`Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims
`1, 2,47, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
`
`Setup of reminders is not improving computer technologyitself, but appears to
`be automating a manual process, as taught by Applicant’ specification. The
`reminder is associated with the judicial exception of interacting with a user to
`perform an activity by generating and transmitting a notification, whichis itself
`abstract (certain methods of organizing humanactivity).
`
`Office Example 21 provides two claims that provide a stock quote alert. Claim 1
`generates the alert and transmits the alert to a subscriber computer. This was
`found to be abstract. Claim 2 added a featureof the alert activates the stock
`viewer and enables connection via the URL to the data source (essentially causes
`the device to become online). This was enough and addressed the challenge of
`alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s
`computeris offline.
`
`Based on the above response,the rejection is respectfully maintained but
`modified for the claim amendments.
`
`Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 15 of Remarks:
`
`REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`A. Rejections of Independent Claims 1, 16, and 20
`
`The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the
`feature of dependent claim 3, as originally filed. The Applicant respectfully
`submits that the combination of Gnanasambandam and Murrish does not teach,
`suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of “receive, from
`the server, a set of health templates ... the received set of health templates, from
`a plurality of health templates stored in the server, is based on an application of a
`secondartificial intelligence (Al) model on the transmitted user profile
`information,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 8
`
`Applicant has amended claims 1 and 20 to add a 2"artificial intelligence model.
`
`It was alleged in the Office Action that:
`
`[rlegarding claim 3 ... Gnanasambandam etal. teaches... retrieves
`the set of health templates from the stored plurality of health
`templates, based on an application of the stored second Al model
`on the received userprofile information. Example of update
`(retrieves) data (health templates) based on artificial intelligence...
`“At block 2304, the processing device may update theartificial
`intelligence engine based on the feedback. A closed-loop feedback
`system may be implemented using these techniques. The feedback
`may enhance the accuracyof the cognified data as the artificial
`intelligence engine continues to learn and improve.” [0416]
`
`See Office Action at pages 29 and 32 (emphasis addeq).
`
`Gnanasambandam describes “[a]t block 2304, the processing device may
`update theartificial intelligence engine based on the feedback. A closed-loop
`feedback system may be implemented using these techniques. The feedback
`may enhancethe accuracy of the cognified data as the artificial intelligence
`engine continues to learn and improve.” See Gnanasambandam at ¥ [0416]
`(emphasis addeq).
`
`Gnanasambandam describesthatthe artificial intelligence engine is
`updated based on the feedback. Gnanasambandam further describes that the
`artificial intelligence engine continues to learn and improve based on the
`feedback. However, Gnanasambandam does not describe that a set of health
`templates, from a plurality of health templates,
`is based on an application of the
`artificial intelligence engine on user profile information.
`
`Murrish does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of
`Gnanasambandam.
`
`Therefore, the combination of Gnanasambandam and Murrish does not
`teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of “receive,
`from the server, a set of health templates ... the received set of health templates,
`from a plurality of health templates stored in the server, is based on an
`application of a secondartificial intelligence (Al) model on the transmitted user
`profile information,’ as recited in amended independent claim 1.
`
`Gnanasambandam etal.teaches:
`One or more (second) machine learning (Al) model...
`“In some embodiments, the critical thinking engine 108 includes anartificial
`intelligence engine 109 (“Al Engine”in FIG. 1) that uses one or more machine
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 9
`
`learning models. The one or more machine learning models may be generated by a
`training engine and may be implemented in computerinstructions that are executable
`by one or more processing device of the training engine, the artificial intelligence engine
`109, another server, and/or the user device 104. To generate the one or more machine
`learning models, the training engine maytrain, test, and validate the one or more
`machine learning models. The training engine may be a rackmountserver, a router
`computer, a personal computer, a portable digital assistant, a smartphone, a laptop
`computer, a tablet computer, a camera, a video camera, a netbook, a desktop
`computer, a media center, or any combination of the above. The one or more machine
`learning models may refer to model artifacts that are created by the training engine
`using training data that includes training inputs and corresponding target outputs. The
`training engine mayfind patterns in the training data that map the training input to the
`target output, and generate the machine learning models that capture these patterns.”
`[0160]
`
`Example of Al conversation using artificial intelligence-based conversation agent
`(second Al model), responsive to content of a user profile (transmitted user
`profile information)...
`“Clause 95. A computer-implemented method for providing action recommendations in
`response to a user-generated natural language conversation stream, the method
`comprising: receiving segments of a user-generated natural language
`conversation stream at anartificial intelligence-based conversation agent froma
`user interface; responsive to content of a user profile associated with the user-
`generated natural language conversation stream, defining a user action outcome
`objective relevant to attributes of the profile; selecting an action likely to advance
`the user action outcome objective; and presenting to the userin the user-generated
`natural language conversation stream a conversation stream segment designed
`to motivate performance of the action likely to advance the user action outcome
`objective.” [0949] — [0953]
`
`Therefore, multiple Al agents can be usedto receive and provide heath
`information (“templates”) to users.
`
`is not taught, suggested or
`Therefore, amended independent claim 1
`rendered obvious over the combination of Gnanasambandam and Murrish. The
`Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 16 and 20 are
`also not taught, suggested or rendered obvious over the combination of
`Gnanasambandam and Murrish at least for the reasons stated above with regard
`to amended independent claim 1.
`
`Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 does not recited the second Al feature. New prior
`art is cited to teach the amended claim feature.
`
`The rejection is respectfully modified based on the claim amendments, but
`maintained.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 10
`
`B. Rejections of Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 10-14, 18, and 19
`
`The Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2, 4-7, 10-14, 18, and 19
`are also not taught, suggested or rendered obvious over the combination of
`Gnanasambandam and Murrish based at least on the dependence on amended
`independent claims 1 or 16. Further, each of claims 2, 4-7, 10-14, 18, and 19
`separately recites subject matter not described or suggested by any of the cited
`references, whether taken individually or in combination.
`
`For the above reasons,the rejection is respectfully maintained.
`
`C. Rejection of Dependent Claim 15
`
`Narayanan does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of
`Gnanasambandam and Murrish. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits
`that claim 15 is also not taught, suggested or rendered obvious over the
`references cited in the Office Action based at least on the dependence on
`amended independent claim 1. Further, claim 15 recites subject matter not
`described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually
`or in combination.
`
`For the above reasons,the rejection is respectfully maintained.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads asfollows:
`
`Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful proc ess, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements of thistitle.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
`
`claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-16, and 18-21 are directed to a system or method, which are
`
`statutory categories of invention.
`
`(Step 7: YES).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 11
`
`The Examinerhasidentified system Claim 16 as the claim that represents the
`
`claimedinvention for analysis and is similar to system claims 1 and 20.
`
`Claim 16 recites the limitations of:
`
`A server, comprising:
`
`a memory configured to store a plurality of health templates and a trained
`
`artificial intelligence (Al) model; and
`
`circuitry configured to:
`
`receive user profile information associated with a first user fromafirst
`
`electronic device via a network;
`
`determine a set of health templates from the stored plurality of health
`
`templates, based on an application of the trained Al model on the received user
`
`profile information associated with thefirst user;
`
`transmit the determined set of health templatesto the first electronic device
`
`associated with the first user;
`
`receive, from the first electronic device, information about a set of health
`
`parameters of the first user and a set of activities of the first user, based onafirst
`
`health template selected from the set of health templates, wherein
`
`the information about the set of health parameters of the first user
`
`and thesetof activities of the first user is obtained from one or more sensors
`
`associated with the first electronic device;
`
`determine a set of health recommendations associated with thefirst user,
`
`wherein the set of health recommendations is determined based on:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 12
`
`an application of the trained Al model on the selected first health template,
`
`and
`
`the information aboutat least one of the received set of health
`
`parameters of the first user or the determined set of activities of the first
`
`user;
`
`transmit the set of health recommendations associated with the first user to
`
`the first electronic device;
`
`setup a set of periodic auto-reminders, associated with the determined set
`
`of activities for the first user, based on the selected first health template;
`
`generate, a first notification associated with a first activity of the set of
`
`activities for the first user based on the set of periodic auto-reminders; and
`
`transmit the first notification associated with the first activity of the set of
`
`activities to the first electronic device.
`
`These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also
`
`cover performanceofthe limitation as mental processes. The claim recites elements,
`
`highlighted in bold above, which covers performance ofthe limitation that can be
`
`concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper(e.g., determine a set
`
`of health templates based on received user profile, determine a set of health
`
`recommendations based onafirst health template and information received about
`
`health parameters and determined set of activities of a user). Also, using of a generic
`
`computer to perform abstract steps has been shown to be non-statutory (see MPEP
`
`2106.04(a)(2) Ill C).
`
`If aclaim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/556,860
`Art Unit: 3684
`
`Page 13
`
`covers performanceof the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental
`
`Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
`
`Claims 1 and 20 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The
`
`claims are abstract)
`
`These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover
`
`performanceof the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The
`
`claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the
`
`limitation as managing personal behavior (e.g., teaching such as transmit
`
`recommendations associated with the first user). The claim elements directed towards
`
`receive information about a set of health parameters or set of activities of a person and
`
`determine a set of recommendations based on the information is analogous to
`
`diagnosing or determining a patient's health status. Diagnosing or determining a
`
`patient’s health status falls under the abstract concept of managing personal behaviors
`
`of people.
`
`It is important to note that the examples provided by the MPEP suchassocial
`
`activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not
`
`an exclusive listing and that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Il stating certain activity between a
`
`person and a computer mayfall within the “certain methods of organizing human
`
`activity” grouping.
`
`If aclaim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`covers performance ofthe limitation as managing personal behavior, then it falls within
`
`the “Certain Methods of Organizing HumanActivity” grouping of abstract ideas.
`
`Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 19 are also abstract for
`
`similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
`
`

`

`Application/Cont