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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 30 March 2026. Claims 23-28 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 23-27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 23-28 are 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 23 recites the limitation “a quiz-like game” in line 8. The metes and bounds of “quiz-like” are not clear.
Claim 23 also recites the limitations “a processor” in line 11 and line 14. It is not clear if these are intended to refer to the same processor recited in line 4 or to separate processors.
Claims 24-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwatra et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0001238 A1; hereinafter known as “Kwatra”).
Regarding claim 23, Kwatra discloses a system for assessing how engaged a user is in an activity (Abstract), comprising: a display 112/116 that instructs the user to perform the activity ([0023]-[0025]; [0055]); a monitoring routine, executing on a processor, that assesses an engagement of the user in performing the activity by monitoring an activity parameter ([0037]-[0039]), wherein the display exposes the user to a first motivator that prompts the user to perform the activity, wherein the first motivator is content presented to the user in a first format selected from a plurality of formats comprising video content, audio content, a quiz-like game, images, and text ([0027]; [0029]; [0067]-[0070]), and wherein the monitoring routine assesses the engagement of the user with the first motivator by monitoring a motivator parameter ([0039]; [0046]; [0055]; [0058]); an evaluation routine, executing on a processor, that determines an efficacy of the first motivator at motivating the user to perform the activity by using a model customized to the user based on the activity parameter and the motivator parameter ([0032]-[0035]; [0040]-[0041]; [0045]-[0046]; [0054]-[0055]; [0058]; customized/personalized sessions); and a comparison routine, executing on a processor, that compares the activity parameter to an activity engagement threshold and that compares the motivator parameter to a motivator engagement threshold, wherein the evaluation routine uses the model to select a second motivator in a second format different from the first format if either or both the activity parameter is below the activity engagement threshold or the motivator parameter is below the motivator engagement threshold, and wherein the display exposes the user to the second motivator ([0058]-[0061]; [0067]-[0069]; [0072]; activity parameters are compared to activity engagement thresholds in determining cognitive states; cognitive states and user characteristics/personality/preferences are used to determine or change workouts; motivators are provided based on cognitive states and user characteristics; if the user is not satisfying the motivation threshold, the workout may be changed or a different motivator provided; the motivators may include video content, audio content, and images, so changing the motivator includes changing the format).
Regarding claim 24, Kwatra discloses that the evaluation routine updates the model with a subsequently monitored activity parameter ([0039]; [0061]; [0063]).
Regarding claim 25, Kwatra discloses that the evaluation routine determines a change in the activity parameter monitored at a current time compared to the activity parameter monitored at a past time ([0015]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]-[0059]; [0072]).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Kwatra discloses that the evaluation routine uses the model to identify an attribute of the user that indicates a preference of the user for the first motivator, wherein the evaluation routine selects based on the attribute a support source that the model predicts is likely to support the user in performing the activity, and wherein the support source is selected from the group consisting of: a physician, a chatbot, and an avatar ([0057]; [0067]; [0076]).
Regarding claim 28, Kwatra discloses that the system generates a virtual support system that the model predicts is likely to support the user in performing the activity ([0067]; [0075]-[0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kwatra fails to teach the limitations of the amended claims, as its modifications only involve changing the storyline of the AR workout, type of exercise equipment, or adjusting workout parameters – they all remain within the same AR workout format. The examiner disagrees that Kwatra fails to teach the amended limitations. Kwatra does indeed change its motivators within an AR workout format but these changes still meet the amended claim language. Kwatra utilizes video content, audio content, and images in generating its storylines. Thus, the first motivator and the second motivator may include different formats (as well as the same formats). The examiner agrees that Kwatra does not teach providing a single first format (e.g., text) as the first motivator and then switching completely to a second, different format (e.g., quiz-like game) as the second motivator; however, this is not recited by the present claim language.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights