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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/23/2025. Presently, claims 1-19 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 08/07/2025. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant disagrees with the teaching of the cited references and ability to combine them to render the claims of the present invention obvious under § 103 (Page 10 of Remarks).
In regards to CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, Shattuck is completely devoid of any teaching or suggestion of an algorithm automatically changing over time to promote progress of the user (Page 12 of Remarks).
In regards to CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, Shattuck's "desired movements/positions" are not input routines or behavioral goals (Page 14 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner notes that Chen is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that Sahin merely teaches a wearable device that can track motion-based behaviors. Shattuck provides corrective "feedback" for body positioning and does not disclose providing "rewards" for behavioral targets. There is a conceptual and functional difference between "feedback" (provides information to guide future improvement) and "reward" (provides praise or positive incentive to foster motivation).
However, in response to the arguments above, feedback is still considered a type of reward. Furthermore, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Revibe as evidenced by "Introducing Revibe Connect, The World's First Focus Tracker!" and "Getting Started with Revibe: A Webinar For New Customers" (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach providing rewards based on behavioral targets. (See office action below).
Regarding point (2), the examiner notes that the previously disclosed references are not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that Shattuck's algorithm analyzes the sensor and other data and determines whether a threshold is met for feedback and if that threshold is met, feedback is presented. If the same data is presented to Shattuck, even after a period of time has elapsed, the same threshold will be used and the same feedback will be presented. However, this is a static/fixed analysis of the data. However, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Revibe as evidenced by "Introducing Revibe Connect, The World's First Focus Tracker!" and "Getting Started with Revibe: A Webinar For New Customers" and Zhou et al. ("Personalizing Mobile Fitness Apps using Reinforcement Learning"; hereinafter Zhou) (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach an algorithm automatically changing over time to promote progress of the user. (See office action below).
Regarding point (3), the examiner notes that the previously disclosed references are not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that Shattuck's "desired movements" specify positional targets for biomechanical accuracy. This is specifically not user- defined input routines or behavioral goals, not integrated with ADHD-specific behavioral shaping or linked to reinforcement thresholds based on patient functioning. However, the office action relies on a newly found prior art reference of Revibe as evidenced by "Introducing Revibe Connect, The World's First Focus Tracker!" (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach input routines or behavioral goals.
Regarding claim 10, since they recite similar features to claim 1, they will be rejected with the newly found prior art as stated above. Therefore, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the references do not disclose the suggested features of claim 1 and 10 and so, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6, and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 24, “the same reward” should read “a same reward”.
Claim 1, line 32, “the user” should read “a user”.
Claim 6, line 5, “the context” should read “a context”.
Claim 6, line 5, “the patient performance” should read “a patient performance”.
Claim 6, line 5, “the level of functioning” should read “a level of functioning”.
Claim 10, line 20, “the same reward” should read “a same reward”.
Claim 10, line 28, “the user” should read “a user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the following limitation: “present/presenting the same reward” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitations are reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “and interactively present additional rewards for display on the display screen” in line 2. It is unclear if “a parent/caregiver/teacher” or “the system” is presenting the additional rewards. For purposes of examination, it is the parent/caregiver/teacher presenting the additional rewards.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “(therapist or prescriber)” in line 2. It is unclear if "(therapist or prescriber)" is an actual claim element of the claim as it is provided in a parenthetical. For purposes of examination, "(therapist or prescriber)" will be excluded from the claim limitation.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to at least one of abstract idea groupings, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines (Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
More specifically, regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a system and/or process, which is are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A-1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract ideas highlighted in bold, including an indication as to the abstract idea grouping(s) to which the indicated limitations belong to, according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines. Independent claims 10, having substantially similar features, were also analyzed and to which the following conclusion is also applicable:
A method for the treatment of ADHD, comprising steps of: providing a wearable device, said wearable device being connectable to an electronic device having an app thereon; defining a plurality of desired behaviors within the app, said plurality of desired behaviors including a plurality of motion based behaviors; defining and creating a plurality of input routines within said app; defining and creating pre-set parameters for generation and presentation of rewards on the wearable device; collecting sensor data and/or location data via sensors in the wearable device; analyzing the sensor data in the electronic device by an algorithm, comprising steps of: determining a baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors based on the analyzed sensor data; determining deviations from the baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors and the plurality of input routines; calculating a first percentage change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; comparing the deviations to said pre-set parameters; and presenting a reward based on a positive determination of the deviations for a first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; and after a set period of time, presenting the same reward for a second percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; the second percentage of change of deviation being different than the first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance; wherein the algorithm continuously adapts over time to modify the percentage of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors required to present the same reward and to guide the user toward successive approximations of targeted behavioral outcomes, thereby facilitating incremental, data-informed behavior change.
The limitations in claim 1 (as well as claim 10) recites an abstract idea included in the groupings of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, connected to technology only through application thereof using generic computing elements (e.g., electronic device, etc.) and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidelines:
Mental Processes include concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
1. Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices (including hedging (i.e., wagering), insurance, mitigating risk);
2. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
3. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The interaction encompasses both activity of a single person (for example a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial or legal interaction). Thus, some interactions between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within this grouping;
Specifically, the instant claims include functions/limitations, as highlighted in the independent claim above, that constitute at least:
C. Following rules and/or instructions, such as including the functions related to the playing of a game, which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. These sets of rules are interpreted as at least certain methods of organized human activity insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to performing or following the set of rules or instructions concerning a game while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in the claims.
D. Concepts performed in the human mind (e.g., “defining a plurality of desired behaviors, defining pre-set parameters, determining a baseline compliance, determining deviations, etc.”), which is an abstract idea included in the grouping of Mental Processes. These limitations are interpreted as at least Mental Processes insomuch as the claim limitations are directed to steps/concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind, while only generically connected to interaction with a computer utilizing non-special purpose generic computing elements and/or insignificant extra-solution activity as set forth in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19:
Each claim is dependent either directly or indirectly from the independent claim identified above and includes all the limitations of said independent claim. Therefore, each dependent claim recites the same abstract idea as identified above. Each of the dependent claim further describes additional aspects of the abstract idea, i.e., additional aspects to the Mental Processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, some dependent claims merely provide additional Mental Processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People to be performed and/or additional insignificant extra-solution activity, without anything more significant to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1-19 clearly do not improve the functioning of a computer, as they only incorporate generic computing elements, do not effect a particular treatment, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Similarly, there is no improvement to a technical field. In addition the claims do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claimed invention does not suggest improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention merely applies the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and/or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)). The claimed computer components are recited at a level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
For the reasons as discussed above, the claim limitations are not integrated to a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure any claim of the present application as a whole amounts to significantly more than one or more judicial exceptions, as described above. For example, the recitations of utilization of “electronic device, wearable device”, etc. used to apply the abstract idea merely implements the abstract idea at a low level of generality and fail to impose meaningful limitations to impart patent-eligibility. These elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general purpose computing devices. The recited generic elements are a mere means to implement the abstract idea. Thus, they cannot provide the “inventive concept” necessary for patent-eligibility. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). As such, the significantly more required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 hurdle and transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible abstract idea is lacking. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Further, the claims would require structure that is beyond generic, such as structure that can be interpreted analogous to a general-purpose structure and general-purpose computing elements in that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional elements that do not add significantly more to the claims. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The elements of electronic device, that has a computer processor such as a smartphone or tablet as described in the specification, are well known conventional devices used to electronically implement the processing of data, such as defining data and determining data as evidenced by Kubota et al. (US 20100115587 A1; hereinafter Kubota) discloses that a conventional computing device is used to process data/information (¶72). Furthermore, the elements of a wearable device, that has sensors is well-known or conventional as evidenced by TEN KATE et al. (US 20210378550 A1; hereinafter TEN KATE). TEN KATE discloses that a conventional wearable device has sensors to monitor movement of the user (¶31-32). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” for at least the same reasons as directed to their respective independent claims, at least based on the position, as discussed above, that each of the dependent claims merely provide additional limitations to further expand the abstract idea of the independent claims, without adding anything which would establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-6, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revibe as evidenced by "Introducing Revibe Connect, The World's First Focus Tracker!" and "Getting Started with Revibe: A Webinar For New Customers" (hereinafter Revibe) in view of Zhou et al. ("Personalizing Mobile Fitness Apps using Reinforcement Learning"; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Revibe discloses A method for the treatment of ADHD (used for ADHD; Introducing Revibe Connect 1:16 -1:35), comprising steps of: providing a wearable device (wearable watch shown in minute 1:55 of Introducing Revibe Connect),
PNG
media_image1.png
1312
1819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said wearable device being connectable to an electronic device having an app (an app on the phone that connects to the watch; Introducing Revibe Connect 10:02-10:17) thereon;
PNG
media_image2.png
1310
1681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
defining a plurality of desired behaviors within the app (the plurality of desired behaviors are focus, attention span, participation, etc.; Introducing Revibe Connect 10:02-10:17), said plurality of desired behaviors including a plurality of motion based behaviors (these behaviors are based on motion, such as steps, participation, focus, etc.; Introducing Revibe Connect 10:02-10:17); defining and creating a plurality of input routines within said app (adding routines through a schedule; Introducing Revibe Connect 17:34 - 18:10);
PNG
media_image3.png
1305
1658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
defining and creating pre-set parameters for generation and presentation of rewards on the wearable device (badges as a reward that are presented to the user; Getting started with Revibe 20:03-21:35);
PNG
media_image4.png
1293
1952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
collecting sensor data and/or location data via sensors in the wearable device (advanced sensors collecting data; Introducing Revibe Connect 9:34-9:47); analyzing the sensor data in the electronic device by an algorithm (algorithm used with sensors; Introducing Revibe Connect 9:48-9:59) and the algorithm is used to guide the user toward successive approximations of targeted behavioral outcomes, thereby facilitating incremental, data-informed behavior change (algorithm guides the user to what they should be doing in their behavior; Introducing Revibe Connect 9:35-9:58). Regarding claim 10, Revibe discloses additional limitations of a display on the wearable device for presenting a reward (wearable watch shown with display in minute 1:55 of Introducing Revibe Connect). Revibe discloses an adaptive algorithm but does not explicitly disclose determining a baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors based on the analyzed sensor data; determining deviations from the baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors and the plurality of input routines; calculating a first percentage change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; comparing the deviations to said pre-set parameters; and presenting a reward based on a positive determination of the deviations for a first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; and after a set period of time, presenting the same reward for a second percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors; the second percentage of change of deviation being different than the first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance; wherein the algorithm continuously adapts over time to modify the percentage of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors required to present the same reward.
However, Zhou focuses on a wearable device that has an adaptive algorithm for tracking movement of a user. Although the focus of this wearable device is in the area of fitness, it relates to Revibe because they focus on tracking motion of a user and they follow similar principles, such as using both of these devices to track steps of the user. Zhou teaches determining a baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors based on the analyzed sensor data (the algorithm will set a baseline goal by learning behaviors of each participant; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); determining deviations from the baseline compliance with the plurality of motion based behaviors and the plurality of input routines (by analyzing the previous performance of the user the system can check if the user met the goal or if there were any deviation to either assign a more difficult goal or vice versa; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); calculating a first percentage change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors (by calculating whether the goal was met or not, the algorithm is calculating the change in deviation from the baseline; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); comparing the deviations to said pre-set parameters (setting goals based on previous performance includes comparing these deviations from the pre-set parameters for the current goal; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); and presenting a reward based on a positive determination of the deviations for a first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors (congratulations push notifications as a reward if goal is met; Page 10 - 1st paragraph); and after a set period of time (after a day, the reward is daily; Page 10 - 1st paragraph), presenting the same reward (the congratulations push notification is a daily reward; Page 10 - 1st paragraph) for a second percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors (there will be multiple deviations because the deviation is calculated every day in order to make the goal more difficult for the next day or vice versa; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); the second percentage of change of deviation being different than the first percentage of change of deviation from the baseline compliance (the amount of deviation is different because it depends on the previous performance of the user and get updated constantly; Page 5 - 1st paragraph); wherein the algorithm continuously adapts over time to modify the percentage of deviation from the baseline compliance for the plurality of motion based behaviors required to present the same reward (this algorithm adapts overtime because it sets daily goals based on previous performance of the user; Page 5 - 1st paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Zhou because with an adaptive algorithm, the system itself will help the player have dynamic and challenging goals because on each individual user. A fixed approach doesn’t take into consideration how different each participant is and might not have the right goals. For example: if the fixed goals are too easy, there will be no challenge or big improvement for the user, but the fixed goal is too hard then the user might not get motivated and will stop using the device. An adaptive algorithm helps participants to reach the “sweet spot” when it comes to the goals based on their past behaviors.
Zhou does not explicitly mention calculating these deviations through “first percentage” or “second percentage” or “any type of deviation through a percentage”. However, Zhou is still calculating the deviations from the daily goal and calculates the most effective future goal in an adaptive fashion. The use of calculating deviations as percentages is obvious to try.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Zhou because the deviations can be calculated in multiple ways such as percentages, ratios, formulas, etc. It would be obvious to try because it's just a different mathematical format that anyone in the art can use to calculate deviations. See MPEP 2143, I. Examples of Rationales.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Revibe discloses further comprising a step of transmitting the analyzed sensor data to a predetermined group of treatment providers (parents have the analyzed data transmitted to the cloud so that they can access it; Introducing Revibe Connect 11:09-11:26).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Revibe discloses wherein the predetermined group of treatment providers are selected from the group consisting of: parents, therapists, prescribers, teachers and insurance providers (parents; Introducing Revibe Connect 11:09-11:26).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Revibe does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of: continuously analyzing the sensor data over time to calculate the deviation from the baseline compliance with an input routine and the plurality of desired behaviors and to detect increase, decrease or no change reflective of progress, regression or plateau relative to the targeted behavioral outcomes.
However, Zhou focuses on a wearable device that has an adaptive algorithm for tracking movement of a user. Although the focus of this wearable device is in the area of fitness, it relates to Revibe because they focus on tracking motion of a user and they follow similar principles, such as using both of these devices to track steps of the user. Zhou teaches further comprising a step of: continuously analyzing the sensor data over time to calculate the deviation from the baseline compliance with an input routine and the plurality of desired behaviors (the algorithm continually analyses the previous performance to see if the daily goal was achieved or not, here the routine is walking and the desired behavior is the goal of how many steps to take; Page 5 - 1st paragraph) and to detect increase, decrease or no change reflective of progress, regression or plateau relative to the targeted behavioral outcomes (the algorithm can check if goal was met or not, which points to detecting an increase and decrease in regards to the goal; Page 5 - 1st paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Zhou because with an adaptive algorithm, the system itself will help the player have dynamic and challenging goals because on each individual user. A fixed approach doesn’t take into consideration how different each participant is and might not have the right goals. For example: if the fixed goals are too easy, there will be no challenge or big improvement for the user, but the fixed goal is too hard then the user might not get motivated and will stop using the device. An adaptive algorithm helps participants to reach the “sweet spot” when it comes to the goals based on their past behaviors.
Regarding claim 6, Revibe does not explicitly disclose adapting the pre-set parameters over time including threshold difficulty, rewards intensity and frequency; re-calculating the pre-set parameters automatically by the algorithm based on the patient performance, the context and the level of functioning.
However, Zhou focuses on a wearable device that has an adaptive algorithm for tracking movement of a user. Although the focus of this wearable device is in the area of fitness, it relates to Revibe because they focus on tracking motion of a user and they follow similar principles, such as using both of these devices to track steps of the user. Zhou teaches adapting the pre-set parameters over time including threshold difficulty (the algorithm is constantly setting adaptive goals which includes adapting the difficulty; Page 5 - 1st paragraph), rewards intensity and frequency (push notification act as a reward and their intensity and frequency can change based on user performance; Page 9 - last paragraph to Page 10 - 1st paragraph); re-calculating the pre-set parameters automatically by the algorithm based on the patient performance, the context and the level of functioning (these parameters are always recalculated because the algorithm is constantly setting adaptive goals based on previous performance; Page 5 - 1st paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Zhou because with an adaptive algorithm, the system itself will help the player have dynamic and challenging goals because on each individual user. A fixed approach doesn’t take into consideration how different each participant is and might not have the right goals. For example: if the fixed goals are too easy, there will be no challenge or big improvement for the user, but the fixed goal is too hard then the user might not get motivated and will stop using the device. An adaptive algorithm helps participants to reach the “sweet spot” when it comes to the goals based on their past behaviors.
Regarding claim 15, Revibe does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-set parameters are continuously adapted based on said analysis.
However, Zhou focuses on a wearable device that has an adaptive algorithm for tracking movement of a user. Although the focus of this wearable device is in the area of fitness, it relates to Revibe because they focus on tracking motion of a user and they follow similar principles, such as using both of these devices to track steps of the user. Zhou teaches wherein the pre-set parameters are continuously adapted based on said analysis (the algorithm is constantly setting adaptive goals based on previous performance; Page 5 - 1st paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Zhou because with an adaptive algorithm, the system itself will help the player have dynamic and challenging goals because on each individual user. A fixed approach doesn’t take into consideration how different each participant is and might not have the right goals. For example: if the fixed goals are too easy, there will be no challenge or big improvement for the user, but the fixed goal is too hard then the user might not get motivated and will stop using the device. An adaptive algorithm helps participants to reach the “sweet spot” when it comes to the goals based on their past behaviors.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revibe in view of Zhou in view of Kazlausky et al. (US 2001/0029319 A1; hereinafter Kazlausky).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Revibe does not explicitly disclose further comprising a step of assigning different levels of deviation for a threshold difficulty required for presentation of the reward.
Kazlausky focuses on a wearable device that can monitor activity levels of one or more individuals, which relates to Revibe because they both monitor activity levels in users with ADHD. Kazlausky teaches further comprising a step of assigning different levels of deviation for a threshold difficulty required for presentation of the reward (when setting up different levels of thresholds, different rewards may be given; ¶37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Kazlausky for the benefit of having different levels of deviation, which allows the user to get different levels of reward to help the user keep improving and not feel like a failure. For example if the user misses a goal by a very small amount, having multiple levels of deviation can allow him to still get a small reward for his efforts and promotes the user to keep using the device.
Claims 7-9, 16-18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revibe in view of Zhou in view of Sahin Nedim (WO2016172557A1; hereinafter Sahin).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Revibe discloses including a display and the user seeing animated icons (Introducing Revibe Connect 11:26-11:33) does not explicitly disclose wherein the wearable device includes a display screen to display a pre-selected avatar.
However, Sahin focuses on a wearable device that can collect data, such as motion data, which relates to Revibe because they are both also used for users with ADHD. Sahin teaches wherein the wearable device includes a display screen to display a pre-selected avatar (Displaying avatar from selected favorite objects, animals or popular media characters; 00309).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Sahin because it allows the user to customize what is being shown to the user on the wearable device. Being able to select an avatar that the user likes will motivate the user even further and allow his device to be tailored to him/her.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Revibe does not explicitly disclose wherein an appearance of the pre-selected avatar changes based on the deviations.
However, Sahin focuses on a wearable device that can collect data, such as motion data, which relates to Revibe because they are both also used for users with ADHD. Sahin teaches wherein an appearance of the pre-selected avatar changes based on the deviations (alter style of avatar if individual fails to follow the avatar, failing to follow the avatar is a deviation here; 00309).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Sahin because it allows the user to customize what is being shown to the user on the wearable device. Being able to select an avatar that the user likes will motivate the user even further and allow his device to be tailored to him/her.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Revibe discloses wherein a parent/caregiver/teacher views an analysis of the sensor data in real time (parent can view the analysis and updates through the app; Introducing Revibe Connect 11:09-11:29) and interactively present additional rewards for display on the display screen (students will see encouraging messages and animated icons as they improve; Introducing Revibe Connect 11:26-11-33).
Regarding claim 19, Revibe does not explicitly disclose wherein a provider (therapist or prescriber) views an analysis of sensor data and communicates adjustments in treatment to the parent/caregiver.
However, Sahin focuses on a wearable device that can collect data, such as motion data, which relates to Revibe because they are both also used for users with ADHD. Sahin teaches wherein a provider (therapist or prescriber) views an analysis of sensor data (evaluator can observe the behaviors and other data in real time from the data collection device; 0042) and communicates adjustments in treatment to the parent/caregiver (remote evaluator can guide caregiver step by step; 0042).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Revibe to implement the teachings of Sahin for the benefit of getting feedback and/or instructions from medical providers in this area of expertise. By allowing these providers to analyze the data, they can give their input and help the parents to guide their children in a more efficient manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715