Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09876311"

See other formats


REMARKS 

Applicant has studied the Non-Final Office Action dated December 16, 2009 and have amended 
claim 1. Claims 10-11 have been cancelled. New claims 22 and 23 have been added. No new 
matter has been added. Claims 1-6, 14-16, and 22-23 are pending in the application. 
Reconsideration and allowance of the pending claims in view of the following remarks are 
respectfully requested. Applicant submits that the application is in condition for allowance. In 
the Office Action, the Examiner: 

• rejected claims 1-6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 
Brown (U.S. Patent No. 6,151,586) in view of Bro (U.S. Patent No. 5,722,418); and 

• rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (U.S. 
Patent No. 6,151,586) in view of Sehr (U.S. Patent No. 6,085,976). 

Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. $ 103 

As noted above, the Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 
unpatentable over Brown (U.S. Patent No. 6,151,586) in view of Bro (U.S. Patent No. 
5,722,418). 

(A) With respect to claims 1, the Examiner states that Brown teaches: 

(a) defining a plurality of general programme (Brown: col 12, Ins 18-23) areas 
and a plurality of specific programme areas (Brown: col 12, Ins 23-25. See also 
the Bro reference below which teaches other aspects of this step); 

(c) awarding points to a member of each of the specific programme areas in 
which the member participates, only if the member is afflicted with a disease, to 
which the specific programme area in which the member participates has been 
determined to be of particular benefit (Brown: col 8, Ins 37-53; col 23, Ins 45-57); 

(d) calculating the total number of points awarded to the member (Brown: col 
1 1, Ins 33-36, reads on "fulfilled the evaluation criteria"; col 23, Ins 45-57); 

and 

(e) allocating a reward to the member if the total number of points awarded to 
the member accumulate to a predetermined amount (Brown: col 23, Ins 45-57). 



7802-A08-002 



Page 12 of 23 



09/876,311 



Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner. Brown at col. 12, lines 18-23 merely 
discloses: 

In step 304, script generator 70 generates customized health management script 
program 60 from the information entered in screen 76. Customized health 
management script program 60 is stored in database 58. Steps 302 and 304 are 
preferably repeated to generate multiple customized health management script 
programs 60, e.g. a customized health management script program 60 for diabetic 
individuals, a customized health management script program 60 for asthmatic 
individuals, etc. Each customized health management script program 60 
corresponds to a respective one of the sets of compliance questions entered 
through script entry screen 76. Following step 304, server 42 proceeds to step 
306. 

As can be seen. Brown only teaches custom programs that are based off of script information. 
Brown teaches that script information "includes compliance questions, and for each of the 
compliance questions, corresponding responses choices'...". Therefore, because Brown explicitly 
teaches customized programs Brown cannot teach or suggest defining general program areas and 
specific program areas as asserted by the Examiner. 

Furthermore, nowhere does Brown teach or suggest "awarding points to a member of each of the 
specific programme areas in which the member participates, only if the member is afflicted with 
a disease, to which the specific programme area in which the member participates has been 
determined to be of particular benefit" as asserted by the Examiner. Brown never determines if a 
member is afflicted with a disease that is associated with the specific program area that the 
member has participated in. In Brown a member has a specific script that the member follows. 
Col. 8, lines 37-53 of Brown cited by the Examiner only shows how an administrator can create 
a script/program for a member. This section is completely irrelevant to "awarding points to a 
member of each of the specific programme areas in which the member participates, only if the 
member is afflicted with a disease, to which the specific programme area in which the member 
participates has been determined to be of particular benefit". 



7802-A08-002 



Page 13 of 23 



09/876,311 



Col. 23, lines 45-57 of Brown cited by the Examiner only shows how Brown determines if the 
member has satisfied various criteria of the member's customized script/program in order to 
receive credits. Because Brown customizes a script/program for a member Brown already 
knows what disease the member has and every item in the member's customized script/program 
would therefore be associated with the disease. Therefore, Brown clearly does not teach or 
suggest (and actually teaches away from) "awarding points to a member of each of the specific 
programme areas in which the member participates, only if the member is afflicted with a 
disease, to which the specific programme area in which the member participates has been 
determined to be of particular benefit". In fact. Brown allows a user to call in or enter 
compliance information. Nowhere does Brown teach or suggest that a check is performed so that 
points are only allocated to the member when a member is afflicted with a disease to which the 
specific program area in which the member participated in has been determined to be of 
particular benefit to that disease. 

Even further, nowhere does Brown teach or suggest "allocating a reward to the member if the 
total number of points awarded to the member accumulate to a predetermined amount" as 
asserted by the Examiner. For example. Brown explicitly teaches that credit is given to a 
member when the member is deemed compliant. See Brown at col. 23, lines 44-57. 
Compliance, in Brown, is meeting the criteria of the script/program. Nowhere does Brown teach 
or suggest that points are allocated to the member and then after the member has accumulated 
points over a predetermined amount the member is allocated a reward. Brown merely 
determines if the user has satisfied the criteria of the script/program and then credits the user in 
response thereto. 

Accordingly, the presently claimed invention distinguishes over Brown for at least these reasons. 

(B) The Examiner correctly states "Brown fails to explicitly teach awarding points separately to 
general and specific program areas, and associated levels of performance as recited in 
amendments to claim 1". The Examiner goes on to combine Brown with Bro stating that Bro 



7802-A08-002 



Page 14 of 23 



09/876,311 



discloses: 

(a) wherein the plurality of general programme areas are programme areas 
that if complied with will be of benefit to a member stricken with any disease 
managed by the disease management programme (e.g. Bro: col 11. In 20, 
"exercise) 

and 

wherein the plurality of specific programme areas are programme areas 
that are determined to be of particular benefit to a member afflicted with some 
but not all of the diseases managed by the disease management programme (e.g. 
Bro: col 12, Ins 47-53, Le, "chronic diseases"); 

and 

(b) awarding points (e.g. Bro: col 40, Ins 31-33, reads on "credits"; col 41, 
Ins 3438. Le. "reinforcer"; col 38, his 50-64) to a member for each of the general 
programme areas in which the member participates, the points being allocated to 
members based on a multi-level system (Bro: col 60, Ins 52-62, multi-level reads 
on "graded"), including: 

a first level, wherein the member is awarded points for merely taking part 
in a programme area (Bro: col 40, Ins 34-49), 

a second level, wherein the member is awarded a greater number of 
points for taking part in all programme areas associated with a disease 
with which the member is afflicted (Bro: col 40, Ins 51-56), 

and 

a third level wherein the member is awarded o n s for attainin# a 
minimum level for a measurable of a programme area associated with a disease 
with which the member is afflicted (Bro: col 40, Ins 34-49), 

However, Bro teaches a method and system of behavioral modification 
which uses rewards to reinforce desired behavior (e.g. Bro: col 41, Ins 34-38). 
The teachings include applying the method to both 1) general (e.g. Bro: col 11, 
In 20, "exercise) program areas, where participation would be valuable to a 
patient regardless of the patient's disease state, and 2) specific areas, such as 
programs relating to specific chronic diseases (e.g. Bro: col 12, Ins 47-53). 

Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner. Nowhere does Bro teach or suggest both 
"wherein the plurality of general programme areas are programme areas that if complied with 
will be of benefit to a member stricken with any disease managed by the disease management 
programme (e.g. Bro: col 11. In 20, "exercise") and wherein the plurality of specific programme 



7802-A08-002 



Page 15 of 23 



09/876,311 



areas are programme areas that are determined to be of particular benefit to a member afflicted 
with some but not all of the diseases managed by the disease management programme (e.g. Bro: 
col 12, Ins 47-53, Le, "chronic diseases")" as asserted by the Examiner. 

Bro merely shows at col. 11, line 20 that "exercise" is one component area that a program may 
be directed to. Bro at col. 12, lines 47-53 merely teaches "Another object of the invention is that 
the use of an expert and the patient program may be directed to the field of chronic disease 
detection. More particularly, the patient program will provide periodic behavioral cues to aid the 
expert in the early diagnosis and cure of such chronic diseases as glaucoma, dental and 
periodontal disease, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes". As can be seen, Bro merely states that 
the expert/patient program can be used to detect diseases. Bro fails to teach or suggest the nexus 
between general program areas and specific program areas as recited by the presently claimed 
invention. Stated differently Bro fails to teach or suggest that a disease management program 
has both general and specific program areas where general program areas are of benefit to all 
diseases and specific program areas are of benefit to specific diseases only. Bro seems to only 
teach offering a program directed towards changing a specific behavior problem. Therefore, Bro 
does not teach a disease management program that has both general and specific program areas 
where general program areas are of benefit to all diseases and specific program areas are of 
benefits to specific diseases only. 

Furthermore, nowhere does Bro teach the multi-level system of the presently claimed invention. 
For example, nowhere does Bro teach or suggest the second level where the member is awarded 
a greater number of points for taking part in all program areas associated with a disease with 
which the member is afflicted. In fact, Bro at col. 40, lines 51-56 only discloses cumulative 
credits. This is irrelevant to a member being awarded more points in response to participating in 
all program areas associated with a disease that the member is afflicted with. In other words, the 
condition to be satisfied for the second level points is satisfying all program areas associated 
with a disease that the member is afflicted with. Once this condition is satisfied the member gets 
a bonus set of points that are in addition to any other points previously awarded. To further 



7802-A08-002 



Page 16 of 23 



09/876,311 



clarify this point, Applicants have amended claim 1 to more clearly recite "a second level, 
wherein the member is awarded a bonus set of points in addition to the points awarded in the first 
level in response to participating in all programme areas associated with a disease with which the 
member is afflicted". Nowhere does Bro teach or suggest this for the reasons stated above. 



Accordingly, the presently claimed invention distinguishes over Brown and Bro individually 
and/or in combination with each other for at least these reasons. 



(C) As noted above, the Applicants have added new claims 22 and 23. New claim 22 recites: 

defining a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of specific 
programme areas, wherein the plurality of general programme areas are 
programme areas that if complied with are of benefit to a member stricken with 
any disease managed by the disease management programme and wherein the 
plurality of specific programme areas are programme areas that are determined to 
be of particular benefit to a member afflicted with some but not all of the diseases 
managed by the disease management programme; 

combining the plurality of general programme areas and the plurality of 
specific programme areas into a programme of the disease management 
programme; 

offering the programme comprising the plurality of general programme 
areas and the plurality of specific programme areas that have been combined to a 
plurality of members of the disease management programme, wherein at least two 
members in the plurality of members each comprise a different disease; 

determining that at least one member in the plurality of members has 
participated in at least one of the plurality of specific programme areas; 

identifying a disease associated with the at least one of the plurality of 
specific programme areas participated in by the member; 

determining if the member is afflicted with the disease that has been 
identified; and 

awarding points to the member for the at least one of the plurality of 
specific programme areas participated in by the member in response to 
determining that the member is afflicted with the disease that has been identified. 

In addition to the remarks and arguments made above, nowhere does Brown and Bro teach or 
suggest "...combining the plurality of general programme areas and the plurality of specific 
programme areas into a programme of the disease management programme; offering the 



7802-A08-002 



Page 17 of 23 



09/876,311 



programme comprising the plurality of general programme areas and the plurality of specific 
programme areas that have been combined to a plurality of members of the disease management 
programme, wherein at least two members in the plurality of members each comprise a different 
disease; determining that at least one member in the plurality of members has participated in at 
least one of the plurality of specific programme areas; identifying a disease associated with the at 
least one of the plurality of specific programme areas participated in by the member; determining 
if the member is afflicted with the disease that has been identified; and awarding points to the 
member for the at least one of the plurality of specific programme areas participated in by the 
member in response to determining that the member is afflicted with the disease that has been 
identified". 

For example, Brown only teaches custom programs that are based off of script information 
associated with a given user. Therefore, Brown cannot teach or suggest that general program 
areas, which are of benefit for all diseases managed by the disease management system, are 
combined with specific program areas, which are of benefit to only specific diseases, to create a 
program that is offered to multiple members that have different diseases. Brown specifically 
tailors the scripts/programs to the given user. Therefore, each program area of a script/program 
in Brown is of benefit to the user and is particular to that user's disease. 

Bro is completely silent on combining general program areas, which are of benefit for all 
diseases managed by the disease management system, with specific program areas, which are of 
benefit to only specific diseases, to create a program that is offered to multiple members that 
have different diseases. Brown tailors its program to a specific behavior that is to be modified or 
reinforced. 

Therefore, Brown and Bro fail to teach or suggest "...combining the plurality of general 
programme areas and the plurality of specific programme areas into a programme of the disease 
management programme; offering the programme comprising the plurality of general 
programme areas and the plurality of specific programme areas that have been combined to a 



7802-A08-002 



Page 18 of 23 



09/876,311 



plurality of members of the disease management programme, wherein at least two members in 
the plurality of members each comprise a different disease...". 

Brown and Bro also fail to teach or suggest "... determining that at least one member in the 
plurality of members has participated in at least one of the plurality of specific programme areas; 
identifying a disease associated with the at least one of the plurality of specific programme areas 
participated in by the member; determining if the member is afflicted with the disease that has 
been identified; and awarding points to the member for the at least one of the plurality of specific 
programme areas participated in by the member in response to determining that the member is 
afflicted with the disease that has been identified". 

Nowhere does Brown or Bro identify a disease associated with a user after a user participates in 
a program area. In Brown, the program is specific to a user's health problem so this 
determination is not necessary. Once the user enters his/her information Brown determines if the 
user has done what the program has asked and awards a credit. Bro tailors the program to a 
specific behavior to be addressed and awards the user based on performance. Because the 
program is Bro is directed toward a specific behavior Bro also does not identify a disease 
associated with a user after a user participates in a program area. For the same reasons Bro and 
Brown also fail to teach or suggest "awarding points to the member for the at least one of the 
plurality of specific programme areas participated in by the member in response to determining 
that the member is afflicted with the disease that has been identified". 

Accordingly, the presently claimed invention distinguishes over Brown and Bro individually 
and/or in combination with each other for at least these reasons as well. 

With respect to new claim 23, new claim 23 recites: 

defining a plurality of general programme areas and a plurality of specific 
programme areas, wherein the plurality of general programme areas are 
programme areas that if complied with are of benefit to a member stricken with 
any disease managed by the disease management programme and wherein the 



7802-A08-002 



Page 19 of 23 



09/876,311 



plurality of specific programme areas are programme areas that are determined to 
be of particular benefit to a member afflicted with some but not all of the diseases 
managed by the disease management programme; 

combining the plurality of general programme areas and the plurality of 
specific programme areas into a programme of the disease management 
programme; 

offering the programme comprising the plurality of general programme 
areas and the plurality of specific programme areas that have been combined to a 
plurality of members of the disease management programme, wherein at least two 
members in the plurality of members each comprise a different disease; 

determining that at least one member in the plurality of members has 
participated in at least one programme area in at least one of the plurality of 
general programme areas and the plurality of specific programme areas; 

awarding a first set of points to the member in response to the member 
participating in the at least one progamme area, wherein the first set of points are 
awarded based on a multi-level system comprising: 

a first level where the first set of points are allocated to the 

member after participating in a first programme area; 

determining that the member has participated in all of the plurality 

general programme areas and a set of specific programmer areas in the 

plurality of specific programme areas; 

identifying a disease associated with the set of specific programme 

areas participated in by the member; 

determining that the set of specific programme areas comprises all 

of the specific programme areas associated with the disease that has been 

identified; 

determining if the member is afflicted with the disease that has 
been identifled; and 

awarding a second set of points to the member for the at least one of the 
plurality of specific programme areas participated in by the member in response 
to determining that the member is afflicted with the disease that has been 
identified, wherein the second set of points are awarded based on the multi-level 
system comprising: 

a second level where the second set of points are allocated to the 

member in addition to the first set of points in response to participating in 

all programme areas associated with the disease that the member is 

afflicted with; 

determining that member has attained a minimum level for a 
measurable of at least one programme area associated with the disease that 
the member is afflicted with; 

awarding a third set of points to the member in response to the member 
having attained the minimum level, wherein the second set of points are awarded 
based on the multi-level system comprising: 



7802-A08-002 



Page 20 of 23 



09/876,311 



a third level where the third set of points are allocated based on the 
member having satisfied the first level and the second level, where the 
third set of points being allocated in addition to the first set of points and 
the second set of point; 

calculating, based at least on the first set of points, the second set 
of points, and the third set of point, a total number of points awarded to 
the member, and 

allocating a reward to the member if the total number of points 
awarded to the member accumulates to a predetermined amount of points. 

In addition to the remarks and arguments made above with respect to claim 1 and 22, Brown and 
Bro fail to teach or suggest awarding points on a first, second, and third level where the second 
level is awarded after the first level is satisfied and the third level is awarded after the second 
level is satisfied. Brown and Bro are completely silent on these claim elements. 

Accordingly, the presently claimed invention distinguishes over Brown and Bro individually 
and/or in combination with each other for at least these reasons as well. 

Claims 2-6, 14, and 15 depend from claim 1. Since dependent claims recite all of the limitations 
of their independent claim, claims 2-6, 14, and 15 also recite in allowable form as well. 

(C) As noted above, the Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 
unpatentable over Brown (U.S. Patent No. 6,151,586) in view of Sehr (U.S. Patent No. 
6,085,976). 

Claim 16 depends from claim 1, since dependent claims recite all of the limitations of their 
independent claim and Brown and Sehr fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, 
claim 1 also recites in allowable form as well. 

(D) For the foregoing reasons Applicant submits that 1-6, 14-16, and 22-23 distinguish over the 
cited references alone and/or in combination with each other. Therefore, Applicant respectfully 



7802-A08-002 



Page 21 of 23 



09/876,311 



submits that the rejection of claims 1-6, 14-16 has been overcome and should be withdrawn. 



CONCLUSION 

Applicants acknowledge the continuing duty of candor and good faith to disclosure of 
information known to be material to the examination of this apphcation. In accordance with 37 
CFR § 1.56, all such information is dutifully made of record. The foreseeable equivalents of any 
territory surrendered by amendment is limited to the territory taught by the information of 
record. No other territory afforded by the doctrine of equivalents is knowingly surrendered and 
everything else is unforeseeable at the time of this amendment by Applicants and their attorneys. 

If the Examiner believes that there are any informalities that can be corrected by 
Examiner's amendment, or that in any way it would help expedite the prosecution of the 
patent application, a telephone call to the undersigned at (305) 305-830-2600 is respectfully 
solicited. 

The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees that may be required or credit any 
overpayment to Deposit Account 503410 (Docket No.: 7802-A08-002). 

Applicants respectfully submit that all of the grounds for rejection stated in the Examiner's 
Office Action have been overcome, and that all claims in the application are allowable. No 
Previously Presented matter has been added. It is believed that the application is now in 
condition for allowance, which allowance is respectfully requested. 

PLEASE CALL the undersigned if that would expedite the prosecution of this application. 



7802-A08-002 



Page 22 of 23 



09/876,311 



Respectfully Submitted, 



Date: May 17, 2010 /Paul D. Bianco/ 

Paul D. Bianco, Reg. # 43,500 
Attorney for the Applicants 



Fleit, Gibbons, Gutman, 

Bongini & Bianco P.L. 

21355 East Dixie Highway, Suite 115 

Miami, Florida 33180 

Telephone No.: (305) 305-830-2600 

Facsimile No.: (305) 305-830-2605 

e-mail: pbianco@fggbb.com 



7802-A08-002 



Page 23 of 23 



09/876,311