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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office action in response to communications received February 6, 2026. Claims 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 11 and 17 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the rejections set forth in the previous office action dated November 6, 2025.
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 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent Claim(s) 1, 10 and 16 are directed to a data-driven, intelligent ergonomic behavioral aid-based system that uniquely captures telemetry and user behavior data provided over time to provide sufficient context to understand user patterns and behavior as well as the user's environment. The claim(s) recite(s) “receiving telemetry information associated with a user performing a first user session of an application; generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session; generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user a health risk score of the user based on the telemetry information, the health risk score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session, wherein the health risk score comprises how the behavior of the user relates to a potential health risk, and wherein the behavior comprises a repetitive hand movement; and initiating, in response to the health risk score meeting a first criteria, a first action associated with the first user session, wherein a first action comprises remapping from a first orientation to a second orientation and migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.”
The limitations of “receiving telemetry information associated with a user performing a first user session of an application; generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session; generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user a health risk score of the user based on the telemetry information, the health risk score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session, wherein the health risk score comprises how the behavior of the user relates to a potential health risk, and wherein the behavior comprises a repetitive hand movement; and initiating, in response to the health risk score meeting a first criteria, a first action associated with the first user session, wherein a first action comprises remapping from a first orientation to a second orientation and migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of a “Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” which are concepts performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor, memory, information handling system, device, server, first and second devices” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or concepts performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the “information handling system” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually retrieving information associated with a user performing a first user session of an application. Similarly, the generating a health risk score of the user based on the telemetry information, the health risk score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or concepts performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or concepts performed by managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of using a “processor, memory, information handling system, device, server, first and second devices” to perform all of the receiving, generating, initiating and migrating steps. The “processor, memory, information handling system, device, server” is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of executing computer-executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 has the following additional elements (i.e., processor, memory, game controller, first and second devices). Claim 10 has the following additional elements (i.e., information handling system, game controller, first and second devices). Claim 16 has the following additional elements (i.e., device, server, game controller, first and second devices). Looking to the specification, these components are described at a high level of generality (¶ 30; For purposes of this disclosure, an information handling system may include any instrumentality or aggregate of instrumentalities operable to compute, calculate, determine, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, communicate, manifest, detect, record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or other purposes. For example, an information handling system may be a personal computer (e.g., desktop or laptop), tablet computer, mobile device (e.g., personal digital assistant (PDA) or smart phone), server (e.g., blade server or rack server), a network storage device, or any other suitable device and may vary in size, shape, performance, functionality, and price. The information handling system may include random access memory (RAM), one or more processing resources such as a central processing unit (CPU) or hardware or software control logic, ROM, and/or other types of nonvolatile memory). The use of a general-purpose computer, taken alone, does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Claims 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 20150235447 A1 to Abovitz et al. in view of Pub. No.: US 20190180879 A1 to Jain et al. in view of Pub. No.: US 20190283247 A1 to Chang et al. in view of Pat. No.: US 9625884 B1 to Ousley et al. in view of Pub. No.: US 2012/0283021 A1 to Riego in view of Pat. No.: US 7,809,842 to Moran.
As per Claim 1, Abovitz et al. teaches an information handling system, comprising:
-- at least one processor (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 823-824; Such instructions may be read into system memory from another computer readable/usable medium, such as static storage device or disk drive. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the invention. Thus, embodiments of the invention are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and/or software. In one embodiment, the term "logic" shall mean any combination of software or hardware that is used to implement all or part of the invention. The term "computer readable medium" or "computer usable medium" as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 1407 for execution.); and
-- a memory coupled with the at least one processor and storing processor-readable code that, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to perform operations including (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 823-824; Such instructions may be read into system memory from another computer readable/usable medium, such as static storage device or disk drive. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the invention. Thus, embodiments of the invention are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and/or software. In one embodiment, the term "logic" shall mean any combination of software or hardware that is used to implement all or part of the invention. The term "computer readable medium" or "computer usable medium" as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 1407 for execution.):
-- receiving telemetry information associated with a user performing a first user session of an application on a first device (see Abovitz et al. paragraph 810; The AR system may also render patient information. For instance, the AR system may render some patient information (e.g., identification information) so as to appear on a surface of a physical table. Also for instance, the AR system may render other patient information (e.g., medical images, vital signs, charts) so as to appear on a surface of one or more physical walls. Similar to the process flow of FIG. 55, the AR system may detect and recognize input (e.g--here the users may explicitly request to see virtual representation of the pre-mapped anatomy of the heart). Here, based on input, the AR system may retrieve the data from the cloud server, and transmit it back to the user's devices. The system also uses the map coordinates of the room to display the virtual content in the center of the room so that it can be viewed by multiple users sitting around the table.).
Abovitz et al. fails to explicitly teach:
-- generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session.”
-- generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user;
-- generating a health risk score of the user based on the telemetry information, the health risk score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session, wherein the health risk score comprises how the behavior of the user relates to a potential health risk, and wherein the behavior comprises a repetitive hand movement;
-- initiating, in response to the health risk score meeting a first criteria, a first action associated with the first user session, wherein a first action comprises remapping a game controller from a first orientation to a second orientation; and
-- migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.
Jain et al. teaches generating a HICO score based on the first quality of health marker and the second quality of health marker, as discussed in more detail below. Likewise, the method 700 may include generating a BICO score of the patient using lifestyle choices based on at least one of the patient inputs and the sensor data.
In some embodiments, the alert may include the result of at least one of the comparisons of the first quality of health marker to the first quality of health marker baseline value, the second quality of health marker to the second quality of health marker baseline value, the HICO score and the BICO score to the set of baseline values (see Jain et al. paragraphs 254, 258 and Claim 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include systems/methods as taught by reference Jain et al. within the systems/methods as taught by reference Abovitz et al. with the motivation of being able to better manage chronic diseases and predict impact of chronic diseases on a patient, thereby improving the quality of life of the patient and reduce financial burdens associated with treating chronic diseases (see Jain et al. paragraph 43).
Abovitz et al. and Jain et al. fail to explicitly teach:
-- generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session.”
-- generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user;
-- initiating, in response to the health risk score meeting a first criteria, a first action associated with the first user session, wherein a first action comprises remapping a game controller from a first orientation to a second orientation; and
-- migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.
Chang et al. teaches a particular rule may be a minimum threshold biomechanical achievement (e.g., minimum balance or strength) below which the predicted biomechanical achievement ought to result in a warning or other suitable instruction being provided to the experiencing entity with respect to the unsuitability of the condition of interest with respect to the experiencing entity's biomechanical achievement (e.g., an instruction to stop a particular activity of the condition of interest or not go through with a planned surgery of the condition of interest). A threshold or rule may be determined in any suitable manner and may vary between different experiencing entities and/or between different conditions of interest and/or between different combinations of such experiencing entities and conditions and/or in any other suitable manner (see Chang et al. paragraph 217).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include systems/methods as taught by reference Chang et al. with the systems/methods as taught by reference Abovitz et al. and Jain et al. with the motivation of providing comparison data indicative of a comparison between actual recovery data of a POI sensed by a sensor assembly of a system and a predicted recovery for the POI predicted by a model of the system used to help customize recovery exercises and plans, and/or such comparison data can be shared with physical therapists, thereby enabling deeper insight into patient mobility, which may help them modify or re-prioritize various exercises, stretches, or recovery treatments (see Chang et al. paragraph 244).
Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran fail to explicitly teach:
-- generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session.”
-- generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user;
-- generating a health risk score of the user based on the telemetry information, the health risk score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session, wherein the health risk score comprises how the behavior of the user relates to a potential health risk, and wherein the behavior comprises a repetitive hand movement; and
-- … wherein a first action comprises remapping a game controller from a first orientation to a second orientation; and
-- migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.
Ousley et al. teaches an apparatus and methods for facilitating control of apparatus by persons who are unwilling to, unable to, or have difficulty in activating currently available control means. Control available to persons with decreased means of physical input is thereby extended by providing a control apparatus that may be adjusted to accept the user's physical control inputs, and consequently output signals sufficient to control standard devices or systems consistent with the intended purpose of the user (see Ousley et al. Col 4 || 25-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include systems/methods as taught by reference Ousley et al. with the systems/methods as taught by reference Abovitz et al., Jain et al. and Chang et al. with the motivation of providing an improved means for remapping and/or relocating functions from standard, complex control interfaces to a control means adapted to the particular needs of the use, thereby effectively remapping the control means of the controlled device(s) to a control means more suitable for the user(s) particular situation (see Ousley et al. Col 4 || 16-19 and 33-39).
Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran fail to explicitly teach:
-- generating a behavior score of the user based on the received telemetry information, the behavior score associated with a behavior of the user during the first user session.”
-- generating, in response to the behavior score being different than a previously generated behavior score of the user; and
-- migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.
Riego teaches generating metrics based on analysis of stored game play information for a particular player, particular game, and particular game session, where the metrics reflect the player’s behavior and performance during the session. Riego further teaches storing information from multiple game sessions and players and generating metrics from that stored information over time, which supports comparing newly generated metrics to previously generated metrics for the same player across sessions, see paragraphs 36-37 and 54.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the application session telemetry capture and behavior score features taught by Riego with the ergonomic risk scoring system taught by Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran with the motivation of using session specific user activity information to generate scores and to trigger responsive mitigation actions based on changes in user behavior over time.
Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al. and Riego fail to explicitly teach:
-- migrating, in response to the health risk score meeting a second criteria different than the first criteria, the first user session of the application on the first device to a second user session of the application on a second device that is different than the first device.
Moran teaches transferring an interactive application between devices and continuing interaction using a different device configuration, see Abstract, Col 1 || 16-21, Col 9 || 63-67 through Col 10 || 1-9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the controller remapping and device migration features taught by Moran with the system taught by Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al. and Riego with the motivation of reducing ergonomic strain while allowing continued interaction by changing controller orientation and moving the application session to a device configuration better suited to the user’s ergonomic condition.
As per Claim 2, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the first action comprises pausing the first user session of the application for a predetermined amount of time (see Chang et al. paragraph 217; For example, a particular rule may be a minimum threshold biomechanical achievement (e.g., minimum balance or strength) below which the predicted biomechanical achievement ought to result in a warning or other suitable instruction being provided to the experiencing entity with respect to the unsuitability of the condition of interest with respect to the experiencing entity's biomechanical achievement (e.g., an instruction to stop a particular activity of the condition of interest or not go through with a planned surgery of the condition of interest). A threshold or rule may be determined in any suitable manner and may vary between different experiencing entities and/or between different conditions of interest and/or between different combinations of such experiencing entities and conditions and/or in any other suitable manner).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the first action comprises lowering a volume of sound emitted from a first device (see Chang et al. paragraph 71; The suit may make sounds or provide other feedback, for instance through quick movements of the motors, as information to the user that the suit has received a command or to describe to the user that a particular motion profile can be applied. In the above reflex control example, the suit may provide a high pitch sound and/or a vibration to the wearer to indicate that it is about to start the movement. This information can help the user to be ready for the suit movements, improving performance and/or safety. Many types of cues may be possible for all movements of the suit.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 4, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein the first action comprises transmitting a behavioral recommendation to a first device, the behavioral recommendation suggesting the user change the behavior (see Chang et al. paragraph 252; For example, if the patient was determined to have an unstable pelvis while walking pre-event and/or post-event, the system can suggest pelvic drop be prioritized first until the patient has mastered it before moving onto another biomechanical gait marker to work on during post-event recovery (e.g., by providing recommendations and/or actuator control based on comparison between actual post-event achievement data for that biomechanical gait marker and predicted post-event achievement data for that biomechanical gait marker (e.g., as predicted based on models trained with successful DU recovery data and/or all available DU recovery data and/or based on actual recovery data of comparable DUs from comparable events).).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 5, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 1, wherein:
-- the migrating comprises terminating the first user session of the application on the first device and initiating the second user session of the application on the second device (see Chang et al. paragraph 105; Sensors 314 can include one or more of any suitable accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, altimeter sensor, electrocardiography (EKG) sensor, and/or any other suitable sensor. Sensors 314 may be integrated anywhere within the exosuit, though certain locations may be more preferred than others. For example, a sensor can be placed near the waist, upper body, shoes, thigh, arms, wrists, or head. In some embodiments, sensors can be embedded onto any equipment or device being used by the user. In some embodiments, the sensors can be contained external to the exosuit. For example, if worn on the wrist or arm of a worker, the device can be embedded into a watch, wrist band, elbow sleeve, or arm band. A second device may be used and clipped on the waist, on the pelvis, or slipped into a pocket in the garment, embedded into the garment itself, back-brace, belt, hard hat, protective glasses, or other personal protective equipment the worker may be wearing. The device can also be an adhesive patch worn on the skin. Other form factors can also clip onto the shoe or embedded into a pair of socks or the shoe itself).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 5, further comprising:
-- retrieving a mapping of a plurality of devices to a plurality of locations (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 357 and 419; In addition to localization, the topological map may also be used to find loop-closure stresses in geometric maps or geometric configurations of a particular place. It should be appreciated that for any given space, images taken by the user's individual AR system (multiple field of view images captured by one user's individual AR system or multiple users' AR systems) give rise a large number of map points of the particular space.);
-- determining the second device for initiating the second user session based on the mapping of a plurality of devices to a plurality of locations and based on a first location for the first device being different from a second location for the second device (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 357 and 419; In addition to localization, the topological map may also be used to find loop-closure stresses in geometric maps or geometric configurations of a particular place. It should be appreciated that for any given space, images taken by the user's individual AR system (multiple field of view images captured by one user's individual AR system or multiple users' AR systems) give rise a large number of map points of the particular space.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 6, wherein determining the second device comprises determining a mobile device as the second device at the second location for initiating the second user session based on the first device being a stationary device (see Abovitz et al. paragraph 394; Referring to process flow diagram 3000 of FIG. 30, on a basic level, the AR system is configured to receive input (e.g., visual input 2202 from the user's wearable system, input from room cameras 2204, sensory input 2206 in the form of various sensors in the system, gestures, totems, eye tracking etc.) from one or more AR systems. The AR systems may constitute one or more user wearable systems, and/or stationary room systems (room cameras, etc.). The wearable AR systems not only provide images from the FOV cameras, they may also be equipped with various sensors (e.g., accelerometers, temperature sensors, movement sensors, depth sensors, GPS, etc.), as discussed above, to determine the location, and various other attributes of the environment of the user. Of course, this information may further be supplemented with information from stationary cameras discussed previously that may provide images and/or various cues from a different point of view. It should be appreciated that image data may be reduced to a set of points, as explained above.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 6, wherein determining the second device is further based on the telemetry information, and wherein determining the second device comprises determining, based on the telemetry information, that a head posture of the user associated with using the first device is different than a head posture of the user associated with using the second device (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 357, 419 and 810; In addition to localization, the topological map may also be used to find loop-closure stresses in geometric maps or geometric configurations of a particular place. It should be appreciated that for any given space, images taken by the user's individual AR system (multiple field of view images captured by one user's individual AR system or multiple users' AR systems) give rise a large number of map points of the particular space.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the information handling system of claim 8, wherein determining the second device comprises determining the second device based on information that the second device is at least one of positioned at a different height relative to the user than the first device or positioned further away from the user than the first device (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 275, 357, 419 and 810; Information may be collected via the personal AR system of one or more users. The models of the physical world may be developed over time, and by collection via a large number of users. This may allow a given user to enter a new portion or location of the physical world, yet benefit by information collected by others who either previously or are currently in the particular location. Models of virtual worlds may be created over time via user by a respective user.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 10, Claim 10 is directed to a method. Claim 10 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claim 1 as taught by Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 1 respectively.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 12, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the method of claim 10, wherein the application is a video game (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 486-488; Similar to the above process where the AR system is configured to recognize various gestures and perform actions based on the gestures, the user may also use totems, or designated physical objects to control the AR system, or otherwise provide input to the system. The AR system may detect or capture a user's interaction via tracking (e.g., visual tracking) of a totem. Numerous types of totems may be employed in embodiments of the invention, including for example: Existing Structures, Actively Marked Totems, Passively Marked Totems, Camera/Sensor Integration and Totem Controller Object. Any suitable existing physical structure can be used as a totem. For example, in gaming applications, a game object (e.g., tennis racket, gun controller, etc.) can be recognized as a totem. One or more feature points can be recognized on the physical structure, providing a context to identify the physical structure as a totem. Visual tracking can be performed of the totem, employing one or more cameras to detect a position, orientation, and/or movement (e.g., position, direction, distance, speed, acceleration) of the totem with respect to some reference frame (e.g., reference frame of a piece of media, the real world, physical room, user's body, user's head).).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
-- detecting active devices associated with the first user session; retrieving a mapping of a plurality of devices to a plurality of locations, the plurality of devices including the active devices; and determining a position of the user relative to the active devices based on the retrieved mapping (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 357, 394, 419 and 810; Referring to process flow diagram 3000 of FIG. 30, on a basic level, the AR system is configured to receive input (e.g., visual input 2202 from the user's wearable system, input from room cameras 2204, sensory input 2206 in the form of various sensors in the system, gestures, totems, eye tracking etc.) from one or more AR systems. The AR systems may constitute one or more user wearable systems, and/or stationary room systems (room cameras, etc.). The wearable AR systems not only provide images from the FOV cameras, they may also be equipped with various sensors (e.g., accelerometers, temperature sensors, movement sensors, depth sensors, GPS, etc.), as discussed above, to determine the location, and various other attributes of the environment of the user. Of course, this information may further be supplemented with information from stationary cameras discussed previously that may provide images and/or various cues from a different point of view. It should be appreciated that image data may be reduced to a set of points, as explained above. The system also uses the map coordinates of the room to display the virtual content in the center of the room so that it can be viewed by multiple users sitting around the table.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the method of claim 10, further comprising: retrieving a mapping of user furniture to a plurality of locations, and wherein generating the health risk score of the user is further based on the retrieved mapping of user furniture (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 394 and 810; Referring to process flow diagram 3000 of FIG. 30, on a basic level, the AR system is configured to receive input (e.g., visual input 2202 from the user's wearable system, input from room cameras 2204, sensory input 2206 in the form of various sensors in the system, gestures, totems, eye tracking etc.) from one or more AR systems. The AR systems may constitute one or more user wearable systems, and/or stationary room systems (room cameras, etc.). The wearable AR systems not only provide images from the FOV cameras, they may also be equipped with various sensors (e.g., accelerometers, temperature sensors, movement sensors, depth sensors, GPS, etc.), as discussed above, to determine the location, and various other attributes of the environment of the user. Of course, this information may further be supplemented with information from stationary cameras discussed previously that may provide images and/or various cues from a different point of view. It should be appreciated that image data may be reduced to a set of points, as explained above. The system also uses the map coordinates of the room to display the virtual content in the center of the room so that it can be viewed by multiple users sitting around the table.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the method of claim 10, wherein the first action comprises transmitting analytics to the first device, the analytics associated with the behavior of the user during the first user session (see Jain et al. Paragraph 109; In some embodiments, as the system starts incorporating a larger sample of the patient wired with sensors, one can use the metadata derived from the sensor data as the baseline. The metadata may include the mood, activity, lifestyle trend, sleep, stress, or any such psychophysiological components of health that can be deduced from the sensor data.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 16, Claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 16 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as those addressed above for Claim 1 as taught by Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for Claim 1 respectively.
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 18, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the system of claim 16, wherein the server is further configured to determine the second device based on the telemetry information received from the first device, and wherein determining the second device comprises determining, based on the telemetry information, that a posture of the user associated with using the first device is different than a posture of the user associated with using the second device (see Jain et al., paragraph 92; For example, the first quality of health marker may be based on sensor data collected by a PPG sensor, an ECG sensor, an EMG sensor, an accelerometer, a BP sensor, a blood glucose sensor, a respiration sensor, a posture sensor, a temperature sensor, an oxygen-saturation sensor, a cardiac output sensor, a sleep sensor, a stress sensor, an emotion sensing system, etc.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 19, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the system of claim 16, wherein the server is further configured to:
-- retrieve a mapping of user furniture to a plurality of locations (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 357 and 419; In addition to localization, the topological map may also be used to find loop-closure stresses in geometric maps or geometric configurations of a particular place. It should be appreciated that for any given space, images taken by the user's individual AR system (multiple field of view images captured by one user's individual AR system or multiple users' AR systems) give rise a large number of map points of the particular space.);
-- determine a first seating (e.g., chair) apparatus associated with the first device based on the mapping (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 287, 357 and 419; In addition to localization, the topological map may also be used to find loop-closure stresses in geometric maps or geometric configurations of a particular place. It should be appreciated that for any given space, images taken by the user's individual AR system (multiple field of view images captured by one user's individual AR system or multiple users' AR systems) give rise a large number of map points of the particular space.); and
-- determine the second device based on the telemetry information received from the first device and a second seating apparatus associated with the second device based on the mapping (see Abovitz et al. paragraphs 394 and 810; Referring to process flow diagram 3000 of FIG. 30, on a basic level, the AR system is configured to receive input (e.g., visual input 2202 from the user's wearable system, input from room cameras 2204, sensory input 2206 in the form of various sensors in the system, gestures, totems, eye tracking etc.) from one or more AR systems. The AR systems may constitute one or more user wearable systems, and/or stationary room systems (room cameras, etc.). The wearable AR systems not only provide images from the FOV cameras, they may also be equipped with various sensors (e.g., accelerometers, temperature sensors, movement sensors, depth sensors, GPS, etc.), as discussed above, to determine the location, and various other attributes of the environment of the user. Of course, this information may further be supplemented with information from stationary cameras discussed previously that may provide images and/or various cues from a different point of view. It should be appreciated that image data may be reduced to a set of points, as explained above. The system also uses the map coordinates of the room to display the virtual content in the center of the room so that it can be viewed by multiple users sitting around the table.).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 17, and incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran teach the system of claim 16, wherein the migrating comprises: terminating the first user session of the application on the first device and initiating the second user session of the application on the first device (see Chang et al. paragraph 105; Sensors 314 can include one or more of any suitable accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, altimeter sensor, electrocardiography (EKG) sensor, and/or any other suitable sensor. Sensors 314 may be integrated anywhere within the exosuit, though certain locations may be more preferred than others. For example, a sensor can be placed near the waist, upper body, shoes, thigh, arms, wrists, or head. In some embodiments, sensors can be embedded onto any equipment or device being used by the user. In some embodiments, the sensors can be contained external to the exosuit. For example, if worn on the wrist or arm of a worker, the device can be embedded into a watch, wrist band, elbow sleeve, or arm band. A second device may be used and clipped on the waist, on the pelvis, or slipped into a pocket in the garment, embedded into the garment itself, back-brace, belt, hard hat, protective glasses, or other personal protective equipment the worker may be wearing. The device can also be an adhesive patch worn on the skin. Other form factors can also clip onto the shoe or embedded into a pair of socks or the shoe itself).
The obviousness of combining the teachings of Abovitz et al., Jain et al., Chang et al., Ousley et al., Riego and Moran are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on February 6, 2026 with respect to argument (1) in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 15-16 and 18-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 20230274835 A1; [0086] During these tasks, the handheld device collects telemetry and touch data from the built-in sensors, enabling profiling of hand micro-movements, screen touch pressures, walking speed, navigation trajectory, cognitive processing speed, and additional proprietary inputs.
Pub. No.: US 20170039878 A1; A system and method are disclosed of exemplary embodiments for activating, navigating and controlling wellness protocols generated by expert systems algorithmic analysis of user qualitative and quantitative input data parameters in nine lifestyle areas: food, drink, movement, mind, wear, space, rest, self-care and social collaboration using a graphical systems interface and a user input device (mechanical pointing or touch) for displaying and navigating lifestyle/wellness protocols and purchasing related products and services and conducting social collaboration. The system operates on smart phones, tablet computers and desktop computers where lifestyle/wellness protocols are generated based on expert systems algorithmic analysis of qualitative and quantitative input data parameters (lifestyle data and bio-medical data). And, a method is disclosed for receiving qualitative and quantitative input including, but not limited to, wellness and health history questionnaires and bio-medical data and protocols and accessing and integrating wellness data and protocol content and social interactions within the system.
US 20190243911 A1; A method and system for providing on-demand updating of metadata information associated with clinical image data files is disclosed. The system allows for extracting, on the fly, additional metadata fields from clinical image data files and re-indexing the metadata to include the additional fields so that an end-user can perform operations (e.g., searching, browsing, etc.) based on the newly indexed fields. The metadata fields may be defined in a configurable schema file (e.g., XML, YML, etc.). The system can gain efficiencies by, for example, reading only a subset of the DICOM file (e.g., reading only the first few kilobytes that contain the header), scanning only a subset of source data folders, etc.
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 EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights