ETAILED 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 023/18/2026 has been entered.
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 therefor, 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;
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;
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;
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 of a user interacting with an 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 of a user interacting with an 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.
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, 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 by taking an action at the application in response to receiving the feedback, 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 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 of the application in response to receiving the feedback” 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 feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in an application, 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 “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” 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 feedback indicating that an undesirable user experience occurred in an application, 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 “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” 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);
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 a 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), 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), 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 by taking an action at the application in response to receiving the feedback (“...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) [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 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 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 (“...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 applying a different ranking to the suggestions for the auto complete (“... 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) based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred (“... 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, and generate a representation via a graphical user interface of the compatible element” abstract and para. 0003 – 0004. Note: autocomplete by the system generating a guided recommendation) 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 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 Neumann because Neumann would rank recommendation based on biological extraction from the wearable device to provide the most suitable recommendation (abstract and para. 0017).
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).
As to claim 19, Eggers modified by Hui and Neumann teaches The system of claim 16, 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. For example, amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "taking an action in the application that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application, wherein taking the action includes undoing a prior command, selecting a button, or moving a scroll bar." Applicant respectfully submits that "taking an action in the application that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application" cannot reasonably be performed in the human as alleged by the Office Action. Another example includes amended independent claim 16 recites, in part, "correct the user experience interacting with the application by taking an action at the application in response to receiving the feedback, 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 by applying a different ranking to the suggestions based on the feedback indicating the undesirable user experience occurred." Applicant respectfully submits that "providing different suggestions for completing text entered on a user interface of the application" cannot reasonably be 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 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” (pages 7 - 8 of remark).
In response,
As rejected above, elements of “taking an action in the application that automatically corrects the functional error of the user interface in the application, wherein 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 as amended and rejected in claim 1.
Similarly, element of “providing different suggestions for completing text entered on a user interface of the application” 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 as amended and rejected in claim 16.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§102(A) / 103
Applicant’s arguments, regarding to 102(a)/103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eggers, Hui, Neumann, and Chan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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