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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the remarks filed 03/03/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, and 41-44 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-17, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Independent claims 1 and 41 have been amended to include the limitation “computing, by the at least one processor, a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance”. New claims 43 and 44 have been added. Applicant argues that Alailima or Alailima in view of Intrator and Hirobe fails to disclose the amended limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Intrator discloses the claimed limitation of computing a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance (e.g. Par. [0221]: determining correlations to determine cognitive condition of the subject). Therefore, Intrator is still eligible as prior art. The amended claims and new claims 43 and 44 are rejected as explained in the office action below.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered.
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claims 1 and 41 have been amended and new claims 43 and 44 have been added. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite specific processor-implemented time-series signal processing operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. However, this is not found to be persuasive.
As recited, the claims are directed towards a method for managing a cognitive condition of a subject comprising recording life style parameters using a movement sensor and activity metrics, recording cognitive training sessions, determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on measuring a reaction time and analyzing performance metrics, comparing the cognitive performance with stored data to identify changes, computing a correlation value, identifying early stage delirium or pre-delirium based on the correlation value exceeding a threshold, and generating an alarm.
These are steps that are directed to the steps of data gathering, data analysis using generic processing components, and data output and can be performed in the human mind. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), claims that recite a generic computer to perform the claimed steps can still recite a mental process. Here, the inventive concept is in the data processing performed, which are steps that are directed towards an abstract idea. Any alleged improvement in cognitive monitoring is within the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea. Further, these components are being used to perform the extra-solution activity of data gathering, analysis, and displaying (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are applied with any particular machine, (3) effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 41 recite the limitation of the correlation value exceeding a “predefined threshold” that is indicative of cognitive deterioration. The specification does not explain this predefined threshold. While the published specification at par. [0121] discloses identifying a deterioration or improvement in cognitive performance based on a comparison, no threshold is described or explained.
Claims 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, and 42-44 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 41.
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, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for managing a subject suffering from or is at risk of developing delirium. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1 and 41 are directed towards a method, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1 and 41 recite a method for managing a cognitive condition of a subject comprising recording life style parameters using a movement sensor and activity metrics, recording cognitive training sessions, determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on measuring a reaction time and analyzing performance metrics, comparing the cognitive performance with stored data to identify changes, computing a correlation value, identifying early stage delirium or pre-delirium based on the correlation value exceeding a threshold, and generating an alarm or triggering a task. The limitation of a method for managing a cognitive condition as drafted in claims 1 and 41, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of a processor and sensors.
For example, recording life style parameters using a movement sensor and activity metrics, recording cognitive training sessions, determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on measuring a reaction time and analyzing performance metrics, comparing the cognitive performance with stored data to identify changes, computing a correlation value, identifying early stage delirium or pre-delirium based on the correlation value exceeding a threshold, and generating an alarm or triggering a task in the context of this claim encompasses a clinician monitoring and recording cognitive training of a subject, determining an aspect of cognitive performance, identifying changes in the cognitive performance data by comparing the determined cognitive performance data to stored data, computing a correlation value, identifying early stage delirium or pre-delirium based on the correlation value exceeding a threshold, and generating an alarm or triggering a task. Other than reciting a processor and sensors, nothing in the elements of the claims precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Further, the limitation of generating an alarm or triggering a task, as claimed, is simply performing a step of data output.
As recited, the steps of recording the cognitive training sessions and lifestyle parameters are understood to be data collection steps, the steps of determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on measuring a reaction time and analyzing facial expressions, comparing the cognitive performance with stored data to identify changes, computing a correlation value, and identifying early stage delirium or pre-delirium based on the correlation value exceeding a threshold are considered to be data analysis steps, and the steps of generating an alarm or triggering a task are considered to be a data output step. These are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1 and 41 recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional elements of a processor and sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components to acquire, process, and analyze data; See MPEP 2106.05(h)) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, the processor and sensors as claimed and described in the Specification appear to function in a generic manner (par. [0137] of the published specification: “Any monitoring wearable device capable of detecting or determining one or more data sets that may be utilized by the one or more methods and systems disclosed herein may be provided.”).
Accordingly, the 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. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and sensors amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, and 42-44 depend on claims 1 and 41 and recite the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 41 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations recited in claim 3 (i.e. specifying Alzheimer’s disease) is simply further describing the condition. The limitations of claims 4, 8-10, 13, 16, and 43 (i.e. providing further details about the data collected) are directed to data gathering steps. The limitations of claim 11 (i.e. assigning a score to the subjects cognitive status) is a further data analysis step. The limitations of claim 42 and 44 (i.e. providing further details about the alarm and data output) are further data output steps. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, 41, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908, of record), hereinafter Alailima, further in view of Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906, of record), and further in view of Hirobe (US Patent Application 2020/0054266, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Alailima discloses a method for managing a cognitive condition of a subject (e.g. Abstract), the method comprising:
recording a plurality of lifestyle parameters of the subject using a monitoring unit associated with at least one processor and one or more sensors, wherein the lifestyle parameter comprises a movement parameter of the subject recorded using a movement sensor (e.g. Par. [0125]: measuring movement of the user);
recording one or more cognitive training sessions using the monitoring unit or a separate digital device (e.g. Par. [0059]: audio and video among other inputs are used for recording the data of audio during digital device use, texting in digital device application, communication with others, and analysis of use of internet; Par. [0121]: microphone can be used to monitor user; Par. [0050]: digital device used), wherein the cognitive training session comprises games and/or tasks to be performed by the subject (e.g. Pars. [0128]-[0129]: types of games and tasks that can be used), and wherein the recording comprises voice, text and/or video data captured during the cognitive training session (e.g. Par. [0059]: audio and video among other inputs are used for recording the data);
determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on the one or more cognitive training sessions wherein determining the cognitive performance comprises: measuring a reaction time of the subject during the games and tasks, and analyzing performance metrics of the subject (e.g. Par. [0058]: measurement data includes reaction time; Par. [0063]: reaction time data collected; Par. [0115]: rate of facial expression change measured, facial expression change is considered to be the performance metrics);
comparing the determined cognitive performance of the subject with stored cognitive performance data to identify variations indicative of cognitive deterioration or improvement, wherein the stored cognitive performance data comprises results from previous cognitive training sessions (e.g. Par. [0007]: comparing current response to past response to determine cognitive state); and
generating, by the at least one processor, an alarm on identifying changes (e.g. Par. [0009]: based on changes in cognitive data generating an output).
However, Alailima fails to specifically disclose monitoring the subject without requiring active cooperation from the subject, wherein the lifestyle parameters comprise activity metrics including voice patterns, texting activity, communication patterns, and internet usage recorded via a digital device used by the subject, computing, by the at least one processor, a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance, and identifying early-stage delirium or pre-delirium when the correlation value exceeds a predefined threshold indicative of cognitive deterioration.
Intrator, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses an apparatus to determine a mental state of a user. Intrator discloses monitoring the subject without requiring active cooperation from the subject (e.g. Pars. [0185]-[0199]: a headband apparatus can be used for monitoring, which is considered to be a device that does not require active cooperation from a subject); computing a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance, and identifying early-stage delirium or pre-delirium when the correlation value exceeds a predefined threshold indicative of cognitive deterioration (e.g. Par. [0221]: determining correlations to determine cognitive condition of the subject).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring and data analysis of Alailima with the monitoring of the subject in a manner that does not require cooperation from the subject and the correlation of Intrator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Intrator discloses that monitoring the subject with a headband apparatus allows collection of data from a plurality of sensors (e.g. Par. [0199]), and that correlating the user’s brain activity with other physiological parameters can be used to diagnose a condition of the user (e.g. Par. [0221]).
However, Alailima in view of Intrator fails to specifically disclose wherein the lifestyle parameters comprise activity metrics including voice patterns, texting activity, communication patterns, and internet usage recorded via a digital device used by the subject. Hirobe is directed towards information processing to enhance care of a subject. Hirobe discloses monitoring voice pattern during device use (e.g. Par. [0089]: as part of cognition test, measuring voice output).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alailima in view of Intrator to include measuring voice pattern as taught by Hirobe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Hirobe discloses that measuring and analyzing voice pattern can be used to determine cognition (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claim 41, Alailima discloses a method for managing a cognitive condition of a subject (e.g. Abstract), the method comprising:
recording a plurality of lifestyle parameters of the subject using a monitoring unit associated with at least one processor and one or more sensors, wherein the lifestyle parameter comprises a movement parameter of the subject recorded using a movement sensor (e.g. Par. [0125]: measuring movement of the user);
recording one or more cognitive training sessions using the monitoring unit or a separate digital device (e.g. Par. [0059]: audio and video among other inputs are used for recording the data of audio during digital device use, texting in digital device application, communication with others, and analysis of use of internet; Par. [0121]: microphone can be used to monitor user; Par. [0050]: digital device used), wherein the cognitive training session comprises games and/or tasks to be performed by the subject (e.g. Pars. [0128]-[0129]: types of games and tasks that can be used), and wherein the recording comprises voice, text and/or video data captured during the cognitive training session (e.g. Par. [0059]: audio and video among other inputs are used for recording the data);
determining a cognitive performance of the subject based on the one or more cognitive training sessions wherein determining the cognitive performance comprises: measuring a reaction time of the subject during the games and tasks, and analyzing performance metrics of the subject during the cognitive training session (e.g. Par. [0058]: measurement data includes reaction time; Par. [0063]: reaction time data collected; Par. [0115]: rate of facial expression change measured and is considered to be the performance metrics);
comparing the determined cognitive performance of the subject with stored cognitive performance data to identify variations indicative of cognitive deterioration or improvement, wherein the stored cognitive performance data comprises results from previous cognitive training sessions (e.g. Par. [0007]: comparing current response to past response to determine cognitive state); and
triggering, by the at least one processor, a task to be performed by the subject based on the changes (e.g. Par. [0009]: based on changes in cognitive data generating an output; Pars. [0128]-[0129]: types of games and tasks that can be used).
However, Alailima fails to specifically disclose monitoring the subject without requiring active cooperation from the subject, wherein the lifestyle parameters comprise activity metrics including voice patterns, texting activity, communication patterns, and internet usage recorded via a digital device used by the subject, computing by the at least one processor a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance, and identifying early-stage delirium or pre-delirium when the correlation value exceeds a predefined threshold indicative of cognitive deterioration.
Intrator, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses an apparatus to determine a mental state of a user. Intrator discloses monitoring the subject without requiring active cooperation from the subject (e.g. Pars. [0185]-[0199]: a headband apparatus can be used for monitoring, which is considered to be a device that does not require active cooperation from a subject); computing a correlation value between changes in the subject's cognitive performance and changes in the one or more lifestyle parameters across one or more non-zero time-delay offsets, wherein the computing comprises evaluating a delayed association between a change in at least one lifestyle parameter and a subsequent change in cognitive performance, and identifying early-stage delirium or pre-delirium when the correlation value exceeds a predefined threshold indicative of cognitive deterioration (e.g. Par. [0221]: determining correlations to determine cognitive condition of the subject).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring and data analysis of Alailima with the monitoring of the subject in a manner that does not require cooperation from the subject and the correlation of Intrator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Intrator discloses that monitoring the subject with a headband apparatus allows collection of data from a plurality of sensors (e.g. Par. [0199]), and that correlating the user’s brain activity with other physiological parameters can be used to diagnose a condition of the user (e.g. Par. [0221]).
However, Alailima in view of Intrator fails to specifically disclose wherein the lifestyle parameters comprise activity metrics including voice patterns, texting activity, communication patterns, and internet usage recorded via a digital device used by the subject. Hirobe is directed towards information processing to enhance care of a subject. Hirobe discloses monitoring voice pattern during device use (e.g. Par. [0089]: as part of cognition test, measuring voice output).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alailima in view of Intrator to include measuring voice pattern as taught by Hirobe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Hirobe discloses that measuring and analyzing voice pattern can be used to determine cognition (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Alailima further discloses wherein the delirium is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (e.g. Par. [0130]).
Regarding claim 4, Alailima further discloses wherein the training parameters comprise type of training, performances of specific cognitive capabilities and ratio between them, length of training, frequency of training sessions, subject's compliance to the one or more training sessions, or any combination thereof (e.g. Par. [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Alailima further discloses recording one or more physiological parameters of the subject, wherein a deep learning algorithm is further applied on the recorded one or more physiological parameters, and wherein the one or more physiological parameters are selected from the group consisting of: body temperature, respiratory rate, pulse rate, heart rate, beat-to-beat variability (HRV), blood pressure, blood sugar, blood oxygen, cholesterol, blood pH value, body fat, skin resistance, blood pressure, or any combination thereof (e.g. Par. [0065]: temperature, ECG, electrical potential of skin, ECG).
Regarding claim 9, Alailima further discloses recording one or more medical parameters of the subject, wherein the deep learning algorithm is further applied on the recorded one or more medical parameters, and wherein the one or more medical parameters are selected from the group consisting of: drug administered, medical treatment, physiotherapy, psychological treatment, psychiatric treatment or any combination thereof (e.g. Par. [0053]: drugs or medication administered).
Regarding claim 10, Alailima further discloses wherein the one or more life-style parameters are selected from the group consisting of: physical activity, nutrition, consumption of food supplements, social interactions, sleep quality, sleep/wakefulness, degree of maintaining daily routine, or any combination thereof (e.g. Par. [0009]: the output can include a recommendation for physical exercise; Par. [0070]: the output can include a recommendation for physical exercise).
Regarding claim 11, Alailima further discloses assigning a score representing the subject's cognitive status (e.g. Par. [0101]: providing a quantified assessment output).
Regarding claim 13, Alailima further discloses wherein the one or more cognitive training sessions comprise memory training, attention training, lingual training, numeric training, motoric training, social training, reading training, orientation training, problem solving, or any combination thereof (e.g. Pars. [0128]-[0129]: types of assessments provided Par. [0091]: attention and language training; Par. [0144]: memory training).
Regarding claim 16, Alailima further discloses recording and/or storing the subject's memories during periods of peak performance (e.g. Par. [0065]: electrical signals of the brain can be stored, which is considered to be the memories of the user).
Regarding claim 43, Alailima further discloses wherein analyzing task performance comprises determining at least one performance metric selected from response accuracy, reaction time, and facial expression analysis performed on video data captured during the cognitive training session (e.g. Par. [0058]: measurement data includes reaction time; Par. [0063]: reaction time data collected; Par. [0115]: rate of facial expression change measured).
Regarding claim 44, Alailima further discloses wherein the generated alarm indicates risk of developing delirium to enable preventive intervention (e.g. Par. [0009]: changes in cognitive response are output).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908, of record), hereinafter Alailima, further in view of Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906, of record), and further in view of Hirobe (US Patent Application 2020/0054266, of record), as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Proud (US Patent 10,058,290, of record).
Regarding claim 42, Alailima in view of Intator and Hirobe fails to specifically disclose wherein the triggering comprises sending a text message or a message via a mobile messaging application to the subject and monitoring for a required response to the message. Proud, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a user monitoring device. Proud discloses sending a message to the subject and monitoring for a response (e.g. Col. 60, lines 4-49: messages can be sent to the user to suggest recommendation and tasks such as using relaxation tools).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the triggering of Alailima in view of Intrator and Hirobe to include the messaging of Proud, because doing so would allow the user to receive feedback and helpful guidance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0053088, applicant cited on 06/15/2020 IDS). Walker discloses a system for determining therapies that can be used to prevent and reverse dementia related diseases.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights