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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 12/2/2025 in which claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended, claims 5-6 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating a facility trigger map without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, via a graphical user interface, patient-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event; receiving, via the graphical user interface, provider-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility; and processing, by a processer, the patient-specific input and the provider-specific input to determine matched trigger and their corresponding facility locations; and generating and rendering, by the processor, an adaptive facility trigger map in real time by processing said input from the patient and provider to graphically render matched triggers location of any matched triggers in relation to at least one of a schematic, virtual tour, or geo-positionally-tracked route of the facility, wherein the matched triggers are displayed as severity-coded interactive visual indicators, the severity denoted by at least one of the color code or a symbol code, and wherein the graphical interface is configured to be interacted with for at least one of the following provisioning: trigger information, training, or route-guidance in order to prime the patient for triggers present at the healthcare event. These limitations (except italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of generating a facility trigger map, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim 1 recites an additional elements of a graphical user interface, a processor and virtual which do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a graphical user interface, a processor and virtual result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a graphical user interface, a processor and virtual are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a graphical user interface, a processor and virtual are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claim 13 and hence the claim 13 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-12, and 14-16 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 13, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-4 and 7-16 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating a trigger-rich interactive content for a consumer without significantly more.
Claim 17 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 17 is directed to a system for generating a trigger-rich interactive for a consumer, said system comprising: a trigger mapping unit: a processor; a memory element coupled to the processor; said memory element with encoded instruction, when implemented by the processor, cause the system to: receive an input for a patient, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event; receive an input from a treatment provider, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility; and generate, in real time and based on consumer and provider inputs, an adaptive facility trigger map that is configured to display matched sensitivity triggers at facility locations using color or symbol codes indicating severity, wherein the displayed triggers are configured to be interactive to access at least one of trigger-specific information, training, or navigation guidance in order to prime the consumer of the service event. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of generating a trigger-rich interactive content for a consumer, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, and encoded do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, and a memory element result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, and encoded are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, and encoded are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 17, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 17-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 1-4 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al., US Patent Application No. 2016/0077547.
Regarding claim 1, Aimone discloses a method for generating a facility trigger map for priming a patient, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, via a graphical user interface, patient-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event ([0017], interface, [0044], [0098]-[0101], input of a patient fears (i.e. triggers) related to a hospital visit/procedure, [0181], graphical user interface);
receiving, via the graphical interface, provider-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility ([0017], interface, [0098]-[0101], [0181], graphical user interface); and
processing, by a processer, the patient-specific input and the provider-specific input to determine matched trigger and their corresponding facility locations ([0027], [0098], [0105], VR events serve as triggers; [0106], emulates the places where he experienced trauma as different VR events); and
generating and rendering, by the processor, an adaptive facility trigger map in real time by processing said input from the patient and provider to graphically render matched triggers location of any matched triggers in relation to at least one of a schematic, virtual tour, or geo-positionally-tracked route of the facility, wherein the matched triggers are displayed as severity-coded interactive visual indicators, the severity denoted by at least one of the color code or a symbol code, and wherein the graphical interface is configured to be interacted with for at least one of the following provisioning: trigger information, training, or route-guidance in order to prime the patient for triggers present at the healthcare event ([0098]-[0100], [0105]-[0106], [0112], [0116]-[0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different disclosures of Aimone in order to manage the triggers for a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Aimone discloses wherein the patient input comprises at least one of a text, touch, gesture, drop-down, image/video capture, sensor- capture, or graphical plot of at least one of a patient profile information, a current assessment of mental and/or physical state of the patient, a current request for a healthcare event by the patient, or facility information expected to provide said healthcare event) ([0098]).
Regarding claim 3, Aimone discloses wherein the patient profile information comprises at least one of a medical history, biographical information, known and/or potential sensory triggers ([0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Aimone discloses wherein the provider input comprises at least one of a text, touch, gesture, drop-down, image/video capture, sensor- capture, or graphical plot of at least one of an image and/or video capture of provider facility, image and/or video capture of provider facility triggers (known and/or potential), information related to the facility and triggers, or a digital and/or physical sketch of a layout of the facility ([0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Aimone discloses wherein the interactive layout schematic and/or virtual tour enable a user or the patient to further mark-up an object as a known or potential trigger other than the initially highlighted triggers upon being generated ([0098]-[0101], [0128]).
Regarding claim 8, Aimone discloses wherein the marked-up and/or highlighted trigger is interacted with via touch or cursor control for information and/or provisioning related to the trigger ([0098]-[0101], [0128]).
Regarding claim 9, Aimone discloses wherein the information and/or provisioning is accessed by a search or drop-down function ([0128])
Regarding claim 10, Aimone discloses wherein the information and/or provisioning further comprises at least one of a: training status, treatment compliance, in-treatment program, after-treatment program, incentives, and/or a facility/event-route guidance for the patient ([0098]-[0101], [0149]).
Regarding claim 11, Aimone discloses wherein the training and/or treatment compliance is further measured based on a sensor-captured or timed response to a physical and/or cognitive task request ([0151]).
Regarding claim 12, Aimone discloses wherein the training modules are calibrated in terms of types and extent of training is based on a scored risk assessment of the trigger ([0082]-[0083], [0098]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Aimone discloses wherein the icons are color and/or symbol-coded to denote a severity of the trigger ([0082]-[0083], [0098]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 15, Aimone discloses wherein the icons are size-coded to denote a severity of the trigger ([0082]-[0083], [0098]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 16, Aimone discloses wherein the training modules are reconfigurable based on the consumer preference for training ([0137]).
Regarding claim 17, Aimone discloses a system for generating a trigger-rich interactive for a consumer, said system comprising:
a trigger mapping unit:
a processor;
a memory element coupled to the processor; said memory element with encoded instruction, when implemented by the processor, cause the system to ([0027], [0098]-[0101], [0105]-[0106]):
receive an input for a patient, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event ([0044], [0098]-[0101], input of a patient fears (i.e. triggers) related to a hospital visit/procedure);
receive an input from a treatment provider, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility ([0098]-[0101]); and
generate, in real time and based on consumer and provider inputs, an adaptive facility trigger map that is configured to display matched sensitivity triggers at facility locations using color or symbol codes indicating severity, wherein the displayed triggers are configured to be interactive to access at least one of trigger-specific information, training, or navigation guidance in order to prime the consumer of the service event ([0098], learns what each tool does (serves as facility trigger map); knows name of everything, already knows where the bathrooms are; ask for help from nurses; [0099], characters respond to him as feedback; [0100], interacts with all kinds of characters in this world via in-game avatars; Internal EEG-based states are visually overlaid on the avatar so Francine can see the emotional and mental state of the characters in real time, and they can see hers; a cartoon-like way with colour enhancement such as red scale for anger, and blue scale for sadness; [0105], [0106], [0112], a positive effect could be rendered as warm colours, a negative effect could be rendered as cool colours; [0116], different layers of information appear on her “tour” of the city as part of the VR environment…information about the things she’s seeing is overlaid on the screen; [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different disclosures of Aimone in order to manage the triggers for a patient.
Regarding claim 18, Aimone discloses wherein the icon is configured to reveal varying access to information and/or provisioning based on the cursor or touch control of the consumer ([0098]-[0101], [0137]).
Regarding claim 19, Aimone discloses wherein the consumer compliance with training, service provisioning, or consumer route is alerted and/or reported to the consumer and/or service provider upon deviation from a norm ([0082]-[0083], [0085]-[0087]).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al., US Patent Application No. 2016/0077547 in view of Mason et al., US Patent No. 11,942,205.
Regarding claim 20, Mason discloses wherein the trigger mapping unit co-locates the location of a trigger on the schematic and/or tour based on the provider input of facility layout schematics and consumer/provider triggers using any one of deep learning technique (abstract, col. 13, lines 17-col. 16, lines 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above-noted disclosure of Aimone to include the above-noted disclosure of Mason. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage the triggers for a patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-20 under U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claimed invention introduces (i) patient- and provider-specific input capture through a GUI, (ii) processing by a processor to match triggers in real time, and (iii) rendering of severity-coded, interactive indicators embedded within a facility schematic, virtual tour, or geo-positionally tracked route. These features allow patients to actively interact with visual indicators to dynamically access contextual information, training, or navigation guidance. This configuration constitutes a non-conventional GUI solution that enhances human-computer interaction and improves healthcare navigation efficiency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement and the improvement is only to an abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then cites Core Wireless and Example 37 and states that the present claims transform a potential mental process (matching triggers) into a practical GUI improvement that enhances usability and patient compliance. The severity-coded interactive map is not a generic visualization, but a specific technical configuration that directly addresses patient-priming challenges.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there is no GUI improvement when different information is displayed on the GUI. Displaying information is an abstract concept and the GUI is simply utilized as a tool to display the information. There is no technical improvement to the GUI and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that the claims emphasize a patient-centric, real-world healthcare application , using a mobile device as a tool for patient comfort and engagement. The interactive environment in the Applicants’ claims is designed to provide patients with a virtual tour of a facility, highlighting potential triggers and guiding them through a safer, less anxiety-provoking experience. This system focuses on improving patient health outcomes by providing preemptive strategies to manage sensory triggers, rather than dynamically altering the VR environment for the sake of training improvement. Moreover, Applicants’ claims involve generating a facility-specific, user-customized mobile-device tool that helps navigate healthcare environments without distress. The emphasis is on enhancing patient compliance and experience by reducing the impact of environmental triggers, rather than on training or improving user task performance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the disclosure of Aimone reads on interactive environment where patients are provided a critical tour of a facility with trigger events and prepare them in order to minimize anxiety. Aimone reads on each and every limitation of claim .
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding hindsight reasoning, Examiner notes that 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).
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684