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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ram et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0310013, hereinafter “Ram”).
Claims 2, 9, and 16:
Ram discloses a system comprising:
one or more computer processors (§ 0122, Lines 4-5);
one of more computer memories (§ 0122, Lines 4-5);
a set of instructions stored in the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations (§ 0122, Lines 8-12), the operations comprising:
determining a goal of a user of a networked system (§ 0051, Lines 1-4; Recommendation engine is responsible for providing advice to users concerning program tasks, including deep recommendation of task activity issues, such as a recommendation of a particular task to be performed) (§ 0005, Lines 14-16; The effectiveness of health/wellness programs depends on how well their users stick with the program);
selecting a sub-goal corresponding to the goal based on one or more selection criteria (§ 0064, Lines 25-26; Decomposition of complex goals into subgoals), the one or more selection criteria including a consistency of the user in achieving the sub-goal in the past (§ 0064, Lines 26-27; Recommendation of less difficult goals when failing on more difficult ones);
selecting an optimal cadence and an optimal challenge level for the sub-goal (§ 0063, Lines 7-9; The system accurately models and predicts the effects of interventions on individual achievement of the behavior-changing goals, and implements algorithms and heuristics that optimize the selection (“challenge level”) and delivery (“cadence”) of interventions (“sub-goal”) to maximize individual achievement) (§ 0052, Lines 4-7; Coaching interventions are selected to improve user motivation, and specification and adoption of specific behavior goals and implementation intentions; maximize the achievement of adopted goals and plans), the selecting of the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level designed to increase habit formation of the user with respect to the sub-goal (§ 0052, Lines 1-4; Coaching agent 132 is responsible for providing one-on-one as well as team interactions with regard to task performance and mastery of health habits (e.g., diet and exercise)), the selecting of the optimal cadence based on a frequency of a stimulus in an environment of the user (§ 0065, Lines 9-12; The measurement-modeling framework supports the optimal selection of coaching interventions in a way that dynamically changes with measurements of user states and state-changes), the optimal cadence pertaining to a same behavior whenever the stimulus is presented (§ 0059, Lines 4-7; While executing the plan, users can report their activities (such as food consumed or amount of exercise performed) and get nudges from the system and their corresponding social teams for staying on track with the program); and
adjusting the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level such that the user increases a margin of success in accomplishing the goal (§ 0063, Lines 7-11; The system accurately models and predicts the effects of interventions on individual achievements of the behavior-changing goals, and implements algorithms and heuristics that optimize the selection and delivery of interventions to maximize individual achievement) (§ 0065, Lines 9-16; The measurement-modeling framework supports the optimal selection of coaching interventions in a way that dynamically changes with measurements of user states and state-changes, inferring that this process is continuous).
The method of claim 9 is implemented by the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected with the same rationale.
Regarding the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claim 16, Ram discloses that the data structures and code described are typically stored on a computer readable storage medium for use by a computer system (§ 0123).
Claims 3, 10, and 17:
Ram further discloses selecting the optimal challenge level (§ 0052, Lines 4-7; Coaching interventions are selected to improve user motivation, and specification and adoption of specific behavior goals and implementation intentions; maximize the achievement of adopted goals and plans) based on a determination of a speed of the habit formation associated with the optimal challenge level (§ 0052, Lines 1-3; A coaching agent is responsible for providing one-on-one as well as team interactions with regard to mastery of health habits).
Claims 4 and 11:
Ram further discloses wherein the selecting of the optimal cadence is further based on a determination of a speed of habit formation associated with the optimal cadence (§ 0063, Lines 7-11; The system accurately models and predicts the effects of interventions on individual achievements of the behavior-changing goals, and implements algorithms and heuristics that optimize the selection and delivery of interventions (or “cadence”) to maximize individual achievement) (§ 0052, Lines 1-3; A coaching agent is responsible for providing one-on-one as well as team interactions with regard to mastery of health habits).
Claims 5, 12, and 19:
Ram further discloses providing an intrinsic reward based on the margin of success in accomplishing the sub-goal (§ 0060, Lines 1-2; Reward stage where the users earn rewards for performing program tasks).
Claims 6 and 13:
Ram further discloses wherein the intrinsic reward is a presentation of a number of structured interactions received from a group of other users to which the sub-goal of the user has been exposed (§ 0059, Lines 6-7; Get nudges from social teams for staying on track with the program) (§ 0062, Lines 5-6; Social support mechanism that enables the user to achieve his goals with his friends).
Claims 7 and 14:
Ram further discloses wherein the presentation of the number of structured interactions is presented in a user interface in conjunction with a visual representation of the margin of success in accomplishing the sub-goal (§ 0060, Lines 3-4; The reward enables the users to visualize their achievements).
Claims 8 and 15:
Ram further discloses where the margin of success in accomplishing the goal is based on a number of points earned with respect to the sub-goal (§ 0060, Lines 3-4; The reward enables the users to visualize their achievements, such as earning badges or points) (§ 0062, Lines 6-8; A gamification mechanism that allows the user to track his progress and earn rewards).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0310013, hereinafter “Ram”) in view of Albrecht (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109257, hereinafter “Albrecht”).
Claim 22:
Ram discloses the system as recited in claim 2.
Ram does not appear to disclose selecting a periodicity and a challenge level for the sub-goal, the selecting of the periodicity and the challenge level designed to increase the habit formation of the user with respect to the sub-goal.
Albrecht discloses selecting a periodicity (“progressively”) and a challenge level (“new level”) for the sub-goal (Albrecht, § 0058, Lines 36-37; To progressively challenge members the system recommends a new level (set of sub-goals) if the simple ones are achieved), the selecting of the periodicity and the challenge level designed to increase the habit formation of the user with respect to the sub-goal (See the citation above. Progressively challenging members increases engagement and habit-formation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ram’s system by integrating features of Albrecht’s recommendation engine in order to progressively challenge users thereby increasing engagement (Albrecht, § 0058, Line 36).
Claim 23:
Ram in view of Albrecht further discloses adjusting the challenge level to make each step of the habit formation more challenging (Albrecht, § 0058, Lines 36-37; The system recommends a new level (set of sub-goals) (i.e., a more challenging level) if the simple ones are achieved).
Claim 24:
Ram discloses the system as recited in claim 2.
Ram does not appear to disclose wherein the adjusting of the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level allow a marginal contribution of the user to achieve the margin of success of the user.
Albrecht discloses a recommendation engine for adjusting the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level to allow a marginal contribution of the user to achieve a marginal success in accomplishing the goal (§ 0058, Lines 36-37; The system recommends a new level (set of sub-goals) if the simple ones are achieved, where exemplary goals are disclosed in § 0060, ln. 15-19 to include smoking cessation, weight loss, among other well-being improvement resources).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ram’s system by integrating features of Albrecht’s recommendation engine in order to progressively challenge users thereby increasing engagement (Albrecht, § 0058, Line 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant states on page 7 that the limitations “selecting an optimal cadence and an optimal challenge level for the sub-goal” and “adjusting the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level such that the user increases a margin of success in accomplishing the goal” were added precisely because the examiner conceded that Ram does did not teach the concepts of marginal contribution leading to marginal success and that the examiner cannot now claim that Ram anticipates these closely related concepts when the examiner previously conceded that Ram does not teach the underlying principles from which they derive. The examiner disagrees. “Increasing a margin of success” is not the same as “marginal contribution leading to marginal success”. The claims are examined as they are presented in light of the specification. The motivation(s) for why Applicant makes an amendment to the claims do not factor into the propriety of a rejection under 35 USC 102. None of claims 2, 9 and 16 recite “marginal contribution leading to marginal success”. In fact, in the set of claims dated 07/21/2025, the aforementioned feature was removed from claims 2, 9, and 16 and added to new dependent claim 24.
Further on page 7, Applicant argues that the claims require that the optimal cadence pertain to performing the same behavior whenever an environmental stimulus is presented where Ram’s system is premised on dynamic variability—delivering different, changing interventions based on continuously measured internal user states, which are mutually exclusive concepts. Finally, it is argued that a system that teaches dynamically changing interventions based on internal state measurements cannot anticipate a system that requires consistent, repeated behavior patterns triggered by external environmental stimuli. The examiner disagrees. Without acquiescing to the validity of Applicant’s assertion that Ram’s system is premised on dynamic variability, the Examiner submits that dynamic variability is not mutually exclusive to the optimal cadence pertaining to performing the same behavior whenever an environmental stimulus is presented. Ram, in § 0059, discloses that users can report their activities (such as food consumed or amount of exercise performed) and get nudges from the system and their corresponding social teams for staying on track with the program. This mirrors the example given in § 0059 of the originally-filed specification (“The optimal cadence for fast habit formation for a behavior may be the same behavior whenever a certain stimulus is presented, with an intrinsic variable reward immediately following the target behavior. For example, logging every major meal (breakfast, lunch, dinner) right after completion of that meal, and receiving a variable number of high-fives from the group shortly after doing so. Cadence is therefore chosen based on the frequency of a potential stimulus in the environment.”).
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that internal user states and state-changes are not environmental stimuli and that the claimed “optimal cadence pertaining to a same behavior whenever the stimulus is presented” requires behavioral consistency tied to environmental occurrences, whereas Ram teaches behavioral variability tied to internal measurements. The examiner disagrees. User states and state-changes correspond to the claimed “stimulus in an environment of the user”. Applicant is also directed to § 0059 of Ram, which discloses that users can report their activities (such as food consumed or amount of exercise performed) and get nudges from the system and their corresponding social teams for staying on track with the program.
On page 8, Applicant argues that Ram generally discusses that his system “optimizes the selection and delivery of interventions to maximize individual achievement,” but does not disclose the simultaneous, coordinated selection of both an optimal cadence and an optimal challenge level as recited in the claims. The claims require that both the cadence and the challenge level be optimal and that they be selected together based on the selection criteria. Finally, the claims require “adjusting the optimal cadence and the optimal challenge level” together such that the user “increases a margin of success.” The examiner disagrees. Ram, in § 0063, discloses implementing algorithms and heuristics that optimize the selection (“challenge level”) and delivery (“cadence”) of interventions (“sub-goal”) to maximize individual achievement, which corresponds to the claimed “selecting an optimal cadence and an optimal challenge level for the sub-goal” and is simultaneous and coordinated (even though none of claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the terms “simultaneous” or “coordinated”).
Further on page 8, Applicant argues that Ram’s system where interventions vary based on changing conditions is the conceptual opposite of the claimed “same behavior whenever the stimulus is presented.” A system that teaches continuously changing, adaptive responses cannot anticipate a claim requiring behavioral consistency. The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s assertion that Ram’s system where interventions vary based on changing conditions is the conceptual opposite of the claimed “same behavior whenever the stimulus is presented” is not persuasive. Just because Ram’s system is capable of adapting the interventions based on changing conditions does not necessarily mean that his system is incapable of providing interventions based on conditions that do not change. Ram’s disclosure, in § 0059, discloses that users can report their activities (such as food consumed or amount of exercise performed) and get nudges from the system and their corresponding social teams for staying on track with the program proves the examiner’s point.
On pages 8-9, Applicant states that the examiner cannot have it both ways, in that if Ram previously did not teach those concepts, and Applicant amended the claims to incorporate limitations directly addressing those concepts, then Ram still cannot teach those limitations now. The examiner does not understand the premise of this argument. It is not clear to what Applicant refers to as “those concepts”. The Examiner is not aware of any instance in which it was stated in an office action that Ram did not teach a limitation and then proceeded to state in a subsequent office action that Ram did teach the limitation.
On page 9, Applicant provides the same arguments made against claims 2, 9, and 16 to dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 22-24. The responses made to the arguments above with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 apply with equal force to this argument.
Conclusion
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 NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455