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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. Claims 1 and 16 are amended.
References were cited in previous office action.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites
A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of processed signals providing biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with an application with commands provided to the application through a user interface, wherein the plurality of processed signals are updated as the user provides the commands to the application;
determining in response to analyzing the biological feedback that a functional error occurred in the user interface of the application preventing the user interface from operating correctly, wherein the function error occurs in response to the user interface not performing a command received from the user;
taking an action in the application, that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application, wherein the taking the action includes undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar; and
providing feedback in response to taking the action in the application, wherein the feedback is provided in near real time to update application behavior.
Step 1: Thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong I: the limitations “determining in response to analyzing the biological feedback that a functional error occurred in a user interface of the application preventing the user interface from operating correctly, wherein the function error occurs in response to the user interface not performing a command received from the user;
taking an action in the application” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong II: the additional elements “receiving a plurality of processed signals providing biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with an application with commands provided to the application through a user interface, wherein the plurality of processed signals are updated as the user provides the commands to the application” and “providing feedback in response to taking the action in the application, wherein the feedback is provided in near real time to update application behavior” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element “that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application, wherein the taking the action includes undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the additional elements “receiving a plurality of processed signals providing biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with an application with commands provided to the application through a user interface, wherein the plurality of processed signals are updated as the user provides the commands to the application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element “that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application, wherein the taking the action includes undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As to claim 2, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processed signals include neural signals of the user” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 3, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processed signals include bodily signals of the user” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 4, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processed signals include physiological signals of the user” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 5, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processed signals include neural signals of the user and bodily signals of the user” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 6, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processed signals include features that indicate an instantaneous reaction of the user with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 7, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein determining to take an action in the application in response to analyzing the plurality of processed signals further comprises:
identifying features in the plurality of processed signals that indicate a current state of the user;
comparing the current state of the user to known states to determine an instantaneous reaction of the user interacting with the application; and
using the instantaneous reaction to identify that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
As to claim 8, the additional element “The method of claim 7, wherein the known states are one or more of frustration, surprise, agitation, anger, pleased, content, happy, or indifferent” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 9, the additional element “The method of claim 7, wherein the undesirable user experience is a sub-optimal state of a user interface of the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 10, the additional element “The method of claim 7, wherein the undesirable user experience is a sub-optimal state in a user experience of the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 11, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the feedback is provided to the application in near real time with positive feedback or negative feedback” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 12, the additional element “The method of claim 1, wherein the feedback is provided to a machine learning model providing functionality to the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 13, the additional element “The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a change in near real time to correct an undesirable user experience in the application based on the feedback” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 14, the additional element “The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a personalized experience of the application to the user based on the biological feedback of the user” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 15, the additional element “The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing additional feedback to a machine learning model based on the biological feedback of the user to improve future performance of the machine learning model” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 16, the claim recites
“A system, comprising:
a processor; memory in electronic communication with the processor; and
Instructions stored the memory, the instruction being executable by the processor to:
receive, at an application, feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application with a first set of autocomplete suggestions displayed to complete text entered into a user interface, wherein the feedback is based on an analysis of biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with the application; and
Correct the user experience interacting with the application in response to receiving the feedback by taking an action at the application, by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by applying a different ranking to the suggestions for the auto complete based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred”
Step 1: Thus, the claim is directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong I: the limitations “Correct the user experience interacting with the application in response to receiving the feedback by taking an action at the application” and ‘applying a different ranking to the suggestions for the auto complete based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong II: the additional element “receive, at an application, feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application with a first set of autocomplete suggestions displayed to complete text entered into a user interface, wherein the feedback is based on an analysis of biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements “by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements “A system, comprising: a processor; memory in electronic communication with the processor; and Instructions stored the memory” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the additional element “receive, at an application, feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application with a first set of autocomplete suggestions displayed to complete text entered into a user interface, wherein the feedback is based on an analysis of biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements “by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements “A system, comprising: a processor; memory in electronic communication with the processor; and Instructions stored the memory” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As to claim 17, the additional element “The system of claim 16, wherein the analysis of biological feedback of the user interacting with the application indicates an instantaneous reaction of the user in response to encountering the undesirable user experience in the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d); and
the additional element “the instructions are further executable by the processor to correct the undesirable user experience in near real time in response to receiving the feedback” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
As to claim 18, the additional element “The system of claim 16, wherein the biological feedback includes neurological signals of the user interacting with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 19, “The system of claim 16, wherein the biological feedback includes bodily signals of the user interacting with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 20, “The system of claim 16, wherein the biological feedback includes physiological signals of the user interacting with the application” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, and 13 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers et el., (US PUB 2017/0172424 hereinafter Eggers) in view of Hui et al., (US PUB 2019/0197864 hereinafter Hui).
As to claim 1, Eggers teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of processed signals providing biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with an application
(“...wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device 10 includes a sensor support member, 22, and sensor...” para. 0057) and (“..a wearable device to detect the presence of a transient pressure change associated with the pulsatile change in blood pressure induced by a functioning heart, commonly referred to a subject's pulse. By way of example but without limitation, one or more pressure transducers are incorporated into the wristband of a wristwatch style device and transcutaneously positioned in close proximity to an arterial blood vessel within the wrist, such as the radial artery....” para. 0086. Note: detect is receive) with commands provided to the application through a user interface, wherein the plurality of processed signals are updated (“…The apparatus, system, and method of the present disclosure requires that the two or more different types of heart function sensing methods incorporated in the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device detect that the measured heart function parameters (e.g., heart rate, blood flow rate, blood pressure, endogenous electrical signals generated by the heart) using the two or more different types of heart function sensing methods are all below their respective minimum preselected levels indicative of a functioning heart…” para. 0013) as the user provides the commands to the application (“…The wearer can cancel a false alarm by depressing the alarm cancel button located on the wearable device…” para. 0028) and (“In the event the individual experiencing a cardiac arrest is not at one of the pre-programmed locations and associated phone numbers, the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device, accessory cellular phone and programmable device or server accesses the internet to utilize reverse geocoding…” para. 0036);
determining in response to analyzing the biological feedback that a functional error (“.. By way of example, a false alarm may be caused by wrist-worn wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device losing adequate contact with skin surface to enable measurement of the heart function or the interface between the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device and the subject becoming sufficiently wet to affect the heart function measurement” para. 0040. Note: the wearable device incorrectly raises false alarm) occurred in the user interface of the application preventing the user interface from operating correctly (“...[l] display capable of indicating time, heart rate and warning messages regarding adequate contact with subject to enable detection of true heart function and battery level...” para. 0062), wherein the function error occurs in response to the user interface not performing a command received from the user (“…The accessory cellular phone and programmable device includes [a] wireless communication hardware and software (e.g., Bluetooth ultra-high frequency transmitter) to receive heart-rate values from the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device [b] algorithm to continuously analyze measured photon signal data received from the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device to determine whether the measured photon signals are within a predetermined range to confirm that wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device is properly functioning and is properly positioned on the individual being monitored…” para. 0016. Note: programmable device for programming/commanding a predetermined range) and (In this example case, if the laser Doppler measured blood flow rate obtained in the previous measurement period is 60 arbitrary units and the currently measured blood flow rate is now 10 arbitrary units, then the amount of the measured decrease in the blood flow rate is a factor of 6 which is a greater decrement than the maximum allowed decrement factor of 5 in this example, then an audible alarm as well as a vibration (i.e., haptic) alert would be issued by the wearable device…” para. 0028);
taking an action in the application in response to analyzing the plurality of processed signals (“...the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device to manually cancel a false detection of the occurrence of a cardiac arrest event (referred to hereinafter as “false cardiac arrest events”)...” para. 0013) and (“...By way of example, a distinct 90 dB audible tone would be issued by the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device and/or accessory cellular phone and programmable device for a period of 15 to 30 seconds to enable subject to cancel a false alarm before the apparatus and system of the present disclosure broadcasts the detected occurrence of a cardiac arrest to first responders...” para. 0040) and (“...[n] on/off button to cancel alarm in the event of a false detection of a cardiac arrest...” para. 0062 and 0065), wherein the action that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface error in the application in response to the application making a functional error in the user interface and the user interface is operating incorrectly, wherein taking the action includes undoing a prior command, selecting a button (“...[n] on/off button to cancel alarm in the event of a false detection of a cardiac arrest...” para. 0062 and 0065), or moving a scroll bar; and
providing feedback in response to taking the action in the application, wherein the feedback is provided in [near real time] to update application behavior (“...to cancel any false detection of a cardiac arrest prior to the broadcast of an alarm to first responders. By way of example, a distinct 90 dB audible tone would be issued by the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device and/or accessory cellular phone and programmable device for a period of 15 to 30 seconds to enable subject to cancel a false alarm before the apparatus and system of the present disclosure broadcasts the detected occurrence of a cardiac arrest to first responders...” para. 0040).
Eggers does not but Hui teaches in near real time (“...(for example, sensors may check heart rate every one minute in the idle state, but in real-time in the emergency condition state)...” para. 0111).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers by applying the teachings of Hui because Hui teaches the same field of the invention of wearable device as a medical device to monitor biological conditions of users and alert when a biological danger occurs in real time (para. 0045 and 0111).
As to claim 3, Eggers modified by Hui teaches the method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein the plurality of processed signals include bodily signals of the user (“...detecting heart function, one of the two or more wearable sensors may be used to continuously monitor heart function based on detectable electrical signals generated within the human body as a result of electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue...” para. 0078).
As to claim 4, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein the plurality of processed signals include physiological signals of the user (“...By way of example, if measured heart rate is greater than a pre-programmed physiological lower limit value (e.g., greater than or equal to 10 beats/minute) and measured blood flow rate is greater than a pre-programmed physiological lower limit value...” para. 0089).
As to claim 6, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein the plurality of processed signals include features that indicate an instantaneous reaction of the user with the application (“..the wearer has experienced a cardiac arrest event or reached a motionless state as a result of fainting.” para. 0025).
As to claim 7, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein determining to take an action in the application in response to analyzing the plurality of processed signals further comprises:
identifying features in the plurality of processed signals that indicate a current state of the user (“...the wearable device obtains a measurement of the wearer's current heart rate, HR, using a first heart function assessment apparatus within time interval T1 of sustained motionlessness...” para. 0026);
comparing the current state of the user to known states to determine an instantaneous reaction of the user interacting with the application (“...The current HR measured within time interval T1 is compared with a preselected minimum heart rate, HRMIN...” para. 0026); and
using the instantaneous reaction to identify that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application (“...If the current heart rate, HR is less than the minimum heart rate value, HRMIN then a second Level 2 of the cardiac arrest detection sequence is attained.” para. 0026).
As to claim 8, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 7, Eggers teaches wherein the known states are one or more of frustration (“...If the current heart rate, HR is less than the minimum heart rate value, HRMIN then a second Level 2 of the cardiac arrest detection sequence is attained...” para. 0026, surprise, agitation, anger, pleased, content, happy, or indifferent.
As to claim 9, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 7, Eggers teaches wherein the undesirable user experience is a sub-optimal state of a user interface of the application (“...By way of example, the relative blood flow rate measurement can occur during a brief sampling period, BFSP ranging from 2 to 10 seconds that occurs at a regular time interval, BFRI, ranging from 5 to 30 minutes. Hence, the duty cycle for the laser Doppler blood flow rate measurements throughout a 24-hour period may be maintained below 1%...” para. 0027).
As to claim 10, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 7, Eggers teaches wherein the undesirable user experience is a sub-optimal state in a user experience of the application (“...By way of example, the relative blood flow rate measurement can occur during a brief sampling period, BFSP ranging from 2 to 10 seconds that occurs at a regular time interval, BFRI, ranging from 5 to 30 minutes. Hence, the duty cycle for the laser Doppler blood flow rate measurements throughout a 24-hour period may be maintained below 1%...” para. 0027).
As to claim 11, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein the feedback is provided to the application [in near real time] with positive feedback or negative feedback (“..the wearer has experienced a cardiac arrest event or reached a motionless state as a result of fainting.” para. 0025).
Eggers does not but Hui teaches in near real time (“...(for example, sensors may check heart rate every one minute in the idle state, but in real-time in the emergency condition state)...” para. 0111).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 13, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers teaches further comprising:
providing a change [in near real time] to correct an undesirable user experience in the application based on the feedback (“...the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device to manually cancel a false detection of the occurrence of a cardiac arrest event (referred to hereinafter as “false cardiac arrest events”)...” para. 0013).
Eggers does not but Hui teaches in near real time (“...(for example, sensors may check heart rate every one minute in the idle state, but in real-time in the emergency condition state)...” para. 0111).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
As to claim 14, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing a personalized experience of the application to the user based on the biological feedback of the user (“...the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device to manually cancel a false detection of the occurrence of a cardiac arrest event (referred to hereinafter as “false cardiac arrest events”)...” para. 0013).
Claims 2, 5, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers et el., (US PUB 2017/0172424 hereinafter Eggers) in view of Hui et al., (US PUB 2019/0197864 hereinafter Hui), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chan et al., (US PUB 2021/0282701 hereinafter Chan).
Chan was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 2, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers and Hui do not but Chan teaches wherein the plurality of processed signals include neural signals of the user (“...moved. In this context, an outlier signal may be, for example, an unusually large signal fluctuation. As human brain EEG has generally an average peak-to-peak amplitude range of 200.0 μV, any signal that is much greater (e.g. 400.0 μV) may be safely removed as an invalid outlier signal...” para. 0108).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers and Hui by applying the teachings of Chan because Chan also teaches detecting medical condition (title and abstract). Eggers can apply Chan’s detecting of scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) to gain more experiences.
As to claim 5, Eggers modified by Hui teaches the method of claim 1, Eggers teaches wherein the plurality of processed signals include [neural signals] of the user and bodily signals of the user (“...detecting heart function, one of the two or more wearable sensors may be used to continuously monitor heart function based on detectable electrical signals generated within the human body as a result of electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue...” para. 0078).
Eggers and Hui do not but Chan teaches neural signals (“.. As human brain EEG has generally an average peak-to-peak amplitude range of 200.0 μV, any signal that is much greater (e.g. 400.0 μV) may be safely removed as an invalid outlier signal...” para. 0108).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers and Hui by applying the teachings of Chan because Chan also teaches detecting medical condition (title and abstract). Eggers can apply Chan’s detecting of scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) to gain more experiences.
As to claim 12, Eggers modified by Hui teaches The method of claim 1, Eggers and Hui do not but Chan teaches wherein the feedback is provided to a machine learning model providing functionality to the application (“...An early detection model, which is trained and retrained applying machine learning techniques...” abstract).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers and Hui by applying the teachings of Chan because Chan also teaches the same field of the invention of detecting medical condition (title and abstract).
As to claim 15, Eggers modified by Hui teaches the method of claim 1, Eggers and Hui do not but Chan teaches further comprising:
providing additional feedback to a machine learning model based on the biological feedback of the user to improve future performance of the machine learning model (“...The remote computing system trains and retrains successively improved versions of the basic seizure early detection model until a first set of predetermined performance criteria are met...” para. 0011).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers and Hui by applying the teachings of Chan because Chan also teaches the same field of the invention of detecting medical condition (title and abstract).
Claims 16 – 17 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers et el., (US PUB 2017/0172424 hereinafter Eggers) in view of Hui et al., (US PUB 2019/0197864 hereinafter Hui), and further in view of Neumann et al., (US PUB 2022/0107952 hereinafter Neumann).
As to claim 16, Eggers teaches a system, comprising:
[a processor;
memory in electronic communication with the processor; and
instructions stored in the memory, to:]
receive, at an application, feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in the application (“..a wearable device to detect the presence of a transient pressure change associated with the pulsatile change in blood pressure induced by a functioning heart, commonly referred to a subject's pulse. By way of example but without limitation, one or more pressure transducers are incorporated into the wristband of a wristwatch style device and transcutaneously positioned in close proximity to an arterial blood vessel within the wrist, such as the radial artery....” para. 0086). Note: detect is receive), [with a first set of autocomplete suggestions displayed to complete text entered into a user interface,] wherein the feedback is based on an analysis of biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with the application (“...wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device 10 includes a sensor support member, 22, and sensor...” para. 0057) and;
correct the user experience interacting with the application in response to receiving the feedback by taking an action at the application (“...By way of example, a distinct 90 dB audible tone would be issued by the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device and/or accessory cellular phone and programmable device for a period of 15 to 30 seconds to enable subject to cancel a false alarm before the apparatus and system of the present disclosure broadcasts the detected occurrence of a cardiac arrest to first responders...” para. 0040) [by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing the text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by applying a different ranking to the suggestions for the auto complete based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred;
and update subsequent autocomplete suggestions provided by the application in near real time based on the feedback].
Eggers does not but Hui teaches a processor; memory in electronic communication with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory, the instructions being executable by the processor (“...processor; and a memory storing instructions which when executed by the processor” claim 12), and in near real time (“...(for example, sensors may check heart rate every one minute in the idle state, but in real-time in the emergency condition state)...” para. 0111).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers by applying the teachings of Hui because Hui teaches the same field of the invention of wearable device as a medical device to monitor biological conditions of users and alert when a biological danger occurs in real time (para. 0045 and 0111).
Eggers and Hui do not but Neumann teaches with a first set of autocomplete suggestions displayed to complete text entered into a user interface (“…arranging and displaying guided recommendations via a graphical user interface based on biological extraction, the system comprising a computing device configured to receive, from a wearable device located at a user, at least a biological extraction and at least a datum of user activity data, classify the biological extraction and the at least a datum of user activity as a function of at least a datum of a user fingerprint, select at least a compatible element as a function of the training data and the user fingerprint, wherein the compatible element comprises a guided recommendation…” para. 0003) and (“...A “graphical user interface,” as used in this disclosure, is any form of a user interface that allows a user to interface with an electronic device through graphical icons and displays, audio indicators, text-based interface, typed command labels, text navigation, and the like, wherein the interface is configured to provide information to the user and accept input from the user...” para. 0022) by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing the text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions (“…For instance, computing device 104 may be configured to perform a single step or sequence repeatedly until a desired or commanded outcome is achieved; repetition of a step or a sequence of steps may be performed iteratively and/or recursively using outputs of previous repetitions as inputs to subsequent repetitions…”para. 0019. Note: performing subsequent steps until a desired outcome would include second time to produce second set of guide recommendation) and selected by applying a different ranking to the suggestions for the auto complete based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred (“... Wearable device data may be used as training data to train machine-learning models to match to the data to a category of biological extraction, as described herein, and weigh the category for relevancy in matching to a user's internet usage of computing devices (activity data). In an embodiment, a compatibility index can be calculated and use to filer (weight/rank) the targeted (guided) recommendations and generate a user-customized GUI representation.” Para. 0017);
and update subsequent autocomplete suggestions provided by the application [in near real time] based on the feedback (“...Computing device 104 may update generated representations via the graphical user interface. As used herein, “update,” may refer to any alteration, modification, and/or change in GUI appearance, display, generated representations, related to compatible element 144, guided recommendations 148, of generating representations of any of the outputs described herein...” para. 0038).
It would have been
As to claim 17, Eggers modified by Hui and Neumann teaches The system of claim 16, Eggers teaches wherein the analysis of biological feedback of the user interacting with the application indicates an instantaneous reaction of the user in response to encountering the undesirable user experience in the application (“..the wearer has experienced a cardiac arrest event or reached a motionless state as a result of fainting.” para. 0025); and
the instructions are further executable by the processor to correct the undesirable user experience in near real time in response to receiving the feedback (“...[n] on/off button to cancel alarm in the event of a false detection of a cardiac arrest...” para. 0062 and 0065).
Neumann and Eggers do not but Hui teaches in near real time (“...(for example, sensors may check heart rate every one minute in the idle state, but in real-time in the emergency condition state)...” para. 0111).
It 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 was made to modify Neumann and Eggers by applying the teachings of Hui because Hui teaches the same field of the invention of wearable device as a medical device to monitor biological conditions of users and alert when a biological danger occurs in real time (para. 0045 and 0111).
As to claim 19, Neumann modified by Hui and Eggers teaches The system of claim 16, Neumann and Hui do not but Eggers teaches wherein the biological feedback includes bodily signals of the user interacting with the application (“...detecting heart function, one of the two or more wearable sensors may be used to continuously monitor heart function based on detectable electrical signals generated within the human body as a result of electrical impulses generated by the polarization and depolarization of cardiac tissue...” para. 0078).
As to claim 20, Eggers modified by Hui and Neumann teaches The system of claim 16, Eggers teaches wherein the biological feedback includes physiological signals of the user interacting with the application (“...By way of example, if measured heart rate is greater than a pre-programmed physiological lower limit value (e.g., greater than or equal to 10 beats/minute) and measured blood flow rate is greater than a pre-programmed physiological lower limit value...” para. 0089).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of Hui and Neumann, as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Chan et al., (US PUB 2021/0282701 hereinafter Chan).
As to claim 18, Eggers modified by Hui and Neumann teaches The system of claim 16, Eggers, Hui and Neumann do not but Chan teaches wherein the biological feedback includes neurological signals of the user interacting with the application (“...moved. In this context, an outlier signal may be, for example, an unusually large signal fluctuation. As human brain EEG has generally an average peak-to-peak amplitude range of 200.0 μV, any signal that is much greater (e.g. 400.0 μV) may be safely removed as an invalid outlier signal...” para. 0108).
It 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 was made to modify Eggers and Hui by applying the teachings of Chan because Chan also teaches detecting medical condition (title and abstract). Eggers can apply Chan’s detecting of scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) to gain more experiences.
Response to Arguments
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments, regarding to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued
“The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the present claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. To the extent the rejection remains applicable to the claims as amended, Applicant respectfully traverse the rejection as follows.
The Office Action alleges that the features recited in the claims "can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper." See, Office Action, page. 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant respectfully submits that the feature recited in the amended independent claims cannot reasonably be interpreted as being performed in the human mind. The features recited in the amended independent claims use processed biological-feedback signals to detect that a user interface of an application is not operating correctly and cause the application to automatically correct a functional error occurring in the user interface. For example, amended independent claim 1 automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application by performing actions of "undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar." Applicant submits that performing the actions of "undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar" cannot reasonably be interpreted as performed in the human mind.” (pages 7 - 8 of remark).
In response,
As indicated in the 101 rejection above, amended independent claim 1 recites abstract ideas because elements of typing text, clicking a button merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Element of user interface merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argued
“Amended independent claim 16 automatically corrects an undesirable user experience interacting with an application by "providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different for completing the text entered on the user interface." Applicant submits that providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions on a user interface for completing the text entered cannot reasonably be interpreted as performed in the human mind.
Applicant further submits that the features in the amended independent claims are directed towards a practical application of "the undesirable user experiences are automatically corrected by the application 22 in response to the feedback 20 without conventional user input." See, Specification, paragraph [0047]. Applicant submits that "the actions taken by the application ... to correct or adapt the behavior of the application 22 in response to receiving the feedback 20" are used to improve the user interface of the application and "to improve future recommendations or suggestions for the application 22 and reduce future errors in the recommendations or suggestions provided to the application 22." See, specification paragraph [0048].
For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite patent eligible subject matter.” (page 8 of remark).
In response,
Similarly, As indicated in the 101 rejection above, amended independent claim 16 recites abstract ideas because elements of typing text, clicking a button merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Element of user interface merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§102(A) / 103
Applicant's arguments, regarding to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued
“The Office Action rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0172424 (Eggers) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0197864 (Hui).
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of Hui and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0282701 (Chan).
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of Hui and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0107952 (Neumann).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of Hui and Neumann, and further in view of Chan.
To the extent the rejections remain applicable to the claims as amended, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections as follows.
The Office Action cites to Eggers for disclosing "determining in response to analyzing the biological feedback that a functional error occurred in the user interface of the application preventing the user interface from operating correctly." See, Office Action, page 15.
The cited portions of Eggers disclose a "wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device that incorporates a non-invasive sensor based on optical and/or electrical signals transmitted into and received from human tissue containing blood vessels, and that
transcutaneously quantifies the wearer's heart rate. The heart-rate quantification enables the detection of the absence of any heartbeat by the wearable detection and alerting device indicative of the occurrence of a cardiac arrest, wherein the heart is no longer achieving effective blood circulation in the individual wearing the device. The display on the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device may include the elapsed time since the time of detection of a heart rate that is below a predetermine lower limit value, i.e., the detected occurrence of a cardiac arrest event." See, Eggers, Abstract.
The cited portions of Eggers disclose that "a 'cancel alarm' function would be incorporated in the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device (i.e., device that is being worn or intended to be worn) and/or in the accessory cellular phone and programmable device so that the subject can prevent the broadcast of any false alarm. By way of example, a false alarm may be caused by wrist-worn wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device losing adequate contact with skin surface to enable measurement of the heart function or the interface between the wearable cardiac arrest detection and alerting device and the subject becoming sufficiently wet to affect the heart function measurement." See, Eggers, paragraph [0040].
Applicant submits that the cited portions of do not disclose or suggest at least "receiving a plurality of processed signals providing biological feedback obtained from a sensor on a device as a user interacts with an application with commands provided to the application through a user interface, wherein the plurality of processed signals are updated as the user provides the commands to the application; [and] determining in response to analyzing the biological feedback that a functional error occurred in the user interface of the application preventing the user interface from operating correctly, wherein the function error occurs in response to the user interface not performing a command received from the user," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Instead, the cited portions of Eggers disclose a non-invasive sensor based on optical and/or electrical signals transmitted into and received from human tissue containing blood vessels, and that transcutaneously quantifies the wearer's heart rate, and where a false alarm occurs when an interface between the wearable device and the subject lose adequate contact with the skin surface.” (pages 8 – 10 of remark).
In response,
It is combination of Eggers and Hiu, not any alone, teaches amended claim 1.
In Eggers, user gives commands when the user pre-program range of heart rate values, blood pressure, blood flow rate, etc. turn on/off the device for the device continuously derive and transmit signals (para. 0058 and 0065). When the signal indicate a function error with a false alarm, the user take an action by pressing a button to cancel the application (para. 0028). Therefore, Eggers teaches amended claim 1.
Applicant argued
“The Office Action cites to Nuemann to disclose "wherein the action changes auto complete suggestions provided to the application by providing different suggestions for completing text entered on a user interface of the application." See, Office Action, page 26.
The cited portions of Neumann disclose " arranging and displaying guided
recommendations via a graphical user interface (GUI) based on biological extraction derived from wearable device data. In an embodiment, an evolving GUI may display targeted (guided) representations based on physiological data that originates from a wearable device." See, Neumann, paragraph [0016].
The cited portions of Neumann also disclose that the generated representations may update "via the graphical user interface. As used herein, "update," may refer to any alteration, modification, and/or change in GUI appearance, display, generated representations, related to compatible element 144, guided recommendations 148, of generating representations of any of the outputs described herein." See, Neumann, paragraph [0038].
Applicant submits that the cited portions of Neumann do not disclose or suggest at least "correct the user experience interacting with the application in response to receiving the feedback by taking an action at the application by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing the text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by applying a different ranking to the suggestions based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred," as recited in amended independent claim 16.
Instead, the cited portions of Neumann that disclose providing guided recommendations provided via a GUI based on biological extraction and that the GUI can change or otherwise update.
Applicant submits that the cited portions of Hui and Chan have not been shown to disclose or suggest the features recited in the amended independent claims and, therefore, Hui and/or Chan, alone or in combination with Eggers or Neumann, does not overcome the above-stated deficiencies in Eggers or Neumann. Accordingly, any modification of Eggers or Neumann based on the disclosure of Hui and/or Chan has not been shown to disclose or suggest the recited subject matter of the amended independent claims.
For at least the above reasons, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited reference. For similar reasons, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 16 is also allowable over the cited reference” (pages 8 - 11 of remark).
In response,
It is combination of Eggers, Hui and Neumann, not any alone, teaches amended claim 16. Neumann teaches based on received biological feedback, user can provide first, second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions (para. 0003, 0019 and 0022. Note: user can perform the operation until desired outcome and the outcome is guided recommendations (para. 0019). The recommendation is weight for relevancy and filter (rank) to generate a user-customized GUI representation (Para. 0017).
Therefore, it is combination of Eggers, Hui and Neumann teaches amended limitation of claim 16 “correct the user experience interacting with the application in response to receiving the feedback by taking an action at the application by providing a second set of autocomplete suggestions different suggestions for completing the text entered on the user interface, wherein the second set of autocomplete suggestions is different from the first set of autocomplete suggestions and selected by applying a different ranking to the suggestions based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred”.
Applicant argued
“The remaining claims, which depend from one of claims 1 and 16, are likewise allowable over the cited references for at least the same reasons, as well as being separately allowable for the additional features recited therein.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of the claims.” (page 11 last para. of remark).
In response,
Dependent claims are rejected as they depend on rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ree, (US PUB 2021/0037050), discloses a method for attack protection with any abnormal condition of IoT devices (title, abstract and figures 1 – 6).
Jelveh, (US PUB 2019/0087691), discloses a method for determining user action based on screen image of bio-data from bio-data sensors (title, abstract and figures 1 – 10).
Aimone, (US PUB 2023/0353810), discloses a method for modulating content based on a person's brainwave data, including modifying presentation of digital content at least one computing device (title, abstract and figures 1 – 47).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
