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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 12, it is unclear what it means to “automatically a ride service.”
Claim 16 is still confusing because it states that the touchscreen is behind the recessed front surface of the insert. The insert, according to claim 1, comprises the touchscreen. If the touchscreen is a component of the insert itself, then it is unclear what it means for the touchscreen to be behind the recessed front surface of the insert.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a touchscreen (touch interface panel 11); and a hardware-based processor (CPU Fig. 4) that executes the instructions to carry out stages comprising: providing a combination of messages, music, and lighting (texts, music, moving images, lighting, etc.) based on an environmental characteristic and the user being present (context sensor, biological sensor); receiving user input on the touchscreen, the input describing a mental state of the user (user prompted to input emotional information via touch interface panel); and displaying a map on the touchscreen for user selection, mapping at least one support opportunity related to the emotional state of the user as determined by user input (Fig. 3, Step S12; content information presented for user selection based on emotional state). Labelle additionally discloses, based on the input describing the mental state, the display of a map identifying at least one support opportunity selected based on the user input (see Figs. 17G and 17H). Such display is thus considered well-known and conventional in the art as it allows a user to select treatment opportunities that are suitable to the user.
Ishikawa does not disclose the use of an interactive therapy booth, comprising: a shroud having an open front and at least three sides; and an insert that detachably couples to the shroud such that it is set back within the opening. D’Penha, however, discloses a telemedicine device for public-use employing a kiosk stand with shroud 130 (Figs. 3A, 6A-6D) having an opening (equivalent to opening/cavity 109 as shown in Fig. 1A) and at least three sides (see Figs. 6A-6D). Cavity 109 is recessed such that an insert 200 may be placed within the opening –the insert being a computing device with screen (e.g., a tablet device). Such an arrangement allows the computing device to be detachably secured (clips, grooves, screws, and the like, are considered to inherently allow detachment) within the receptacle and at a position suitable for convenient viewing, while allowing further protection of the screen and other beneficial features such as hibernation mode when not in use (par. 0070). Artisans of ordinary skill in the art looking to capitalize on said advantages would have seen the obviousness of incorporating such a support structure in the system of Ishikawa.
While Ishikawa does not explicitly recognize a user looking at the touchscreen (it is noted that Ishikawa may recognize an image of the user’s facial expression, line of sight and the like for diagnostic purposes), Fish teaches that it is standard for medical kiosks to detect and authenticate users by utilizing movement sensors (proximity) and fingerprint and/or facial recognition (pars. 0033 and 0034; see also par. 0046 of the present specification). To implement such a feature in the system of Ishikawa and D’Penha in order to detect and recognize users would have therefore been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the newly added limitation pertaining to the depth of the recessed cavity, while D’Penha does not state specific dimensions of the recessed cavity, the depth of such a cavity would clearly depend upon the depth of the computing device contained therein (e.g., a CRT monitor, a flatscreen, etc.) and thus be considered a matter of obvious design. In addition, the side panels of D’Penha when deployed for privacy would further add to this depth.
Krebs additionally shows a kiosk with a shroud (see Fig. 1) forming recess for a display 104, as is common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the depth of the shroud and the cavity within which the display resides to be at least 6” in order to provide sufficient privacy and adequate reduction in glare from environmental factors such as sunlight or other bright lights. In any event, as stated above, the exact depth of such a cavity would depend upon the type and size of the display device contained therein, the level of privacy desired, location of the booth, anticipated weather conditions and the overall size of the device to be manufactured, and thus be considered a matter of obvious design by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the newly added limitation concerning user input by manipulating a slider that is displayed on the touchscreen to indicate a current hope level of a user, while Ishikawa does not discuss such a feature, Labelle discloses a related system for assessing a subject’s mental state wherein a user may adjust a slider displayed on a touchscreen to indicate a current hope level (see Figs. 10A and 10B). Those of ordinary skill in the art looking to evaluate the mental state of a subject would have considered the use of such a feature as obvious because the level of hope or despair is an important indicator of possible depression and potential suicidal behavior (see also the paragraph abridging pages 6 and 7). A slider is a convenient and well-known interface to allow one to easily select the level that best fits their condition. To employ such a well-known feature in the system of Ishikawa when evaluating the mental health of a subject would have therefore been considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the mental therapy art.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, D’Penha discloses that the stand with post (see Fig. 3A) may be static/fixed or moveable (par. 0054). Official Notice was taken that it is old and well-known to utilize base plates on stands when it is desired to fixedly secure a stand to the ground. Such a base plate feature allows the system to be securely maintained in position and resist tipping. To utilize this well-known feature for the stand would have therefore been considered a matter of obvious design dependent upon the application at hand. Lacking traversal, this feature is now considered admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa discloses that an ambient light sensor may be used to monitor an environmental characteristic such as determining lighting and concomitantly whether the subject is indoors or outside. While Ishikawa does not explicitly reference the time of day, day of the year and outside temperature as detectable context characteristics, those of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the exact characteristics determined by the context sensor to be a matter of obvious design based upon the application at hand. It is well-known, for example, that seasonal affective disorder is more prevalent in the winter months when temperatures are cold and the amount of daylight is decreased, and/or when the weather is cloudy and dreary, thus decreasing the amount of sunlight and the production of mood regulating neurotransmitters. Such context would obviously be important considerations if one is to accurately assess a subject’s mood and therefore obvious to incorporate into the invention defined above.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the particular dimensions employed for the interactive therapy booth would have been considered a matter of obvious design by those of ordinary skill in the art. Factors such as the desired size of the touchscreen, the typical height of the user expected to utilize the system, and overall aesthetics would influence the exact configuration. Given that most adults on average are above 5 feet in height, for example, arranging the shroud at least 5 feet above the base plate would allow the touchscreen to be placed in a position most suitable to be viewed and controlled by the average person (see Fig. 3A of D’Penha). Clearly routine experimentation would dictate the dimensions allowing for the best user experience.
Regarding claim 15, Official Notice was taken that tablet computing devices such as disclosed by D’Penha (note rejection of claim 1 above) necessarily have an opening for a front-facing camera so as to receive requisite camera optics and allow light to enter and be detected by the image sensor. The use of an opening to place a camera is conventional and thus an obvious matter of design. Lacking traversal, this feature is now considered admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 16, note the rejection under §112 above. D’Penha discloses an insert (e.g., computing device 801) that has a recessed front surface when placed within the parabolic-shaped receptacle 130 and shroud (including panels 601) as shown for example in Figs. 6A and 6B. The recessed position of the screen allows for protection from the elements, privacy, reduced screen glare, etc., and is an old and well-known mounting technique for displays. As such, the claimed feature would have been considered a matter of obvious design by artisans of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Gritzman et al. (Gritzman: Pub. No. 2021/0168450).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish do not discuss retrieving a user profile indicating prior experience clips seen by the user and providing an experience clip that has not yet been seen by the user. Gritzman, however, discloses a related system wherein the emotional state of a user is monitored and a target emotional state is determined. A recommendation module then recommends new content (i.e., content that has not yet been seen by the user) to the user in response to the user’s targeted emotional trajectory (abstract; pars. 0005, 0037, 0053, 0070). Clearly the provision of never-before-seen experience clips to a user beneficially enhances the user’s interest and willingness to engage and watch selected content due to its novelty. As such, artisans of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a feature to be a matter of obvious design. It is further noted that Fish discloses the recited feature of recognizing a user based on fingerprint identification as already discussed above. One would obviously require identification of the user in order to review and manage their user profile, and provide content specifically tailored to the individual.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Graeber (Pub. No. 20210244964).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa does not disclose causing activation of a lightbox therapy. Graeber, however, discloses that mental afflictions such as seasonal affective disorder (SAD) may be treated by the use of lightbox therapy (par. 0004). Given the known use of lightboxes in the treatment of various mood disorders, those of ordinary skill looking to enhance the mood of any user would have considered such a feature as a matter of obvious design.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Krasadakis (Pub. No. 2017/0212583).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish do not discuss tracking the eyes of the user and changing the combination based on where the user is looking. Krasadakis, however, discloses a related device that may be implemented in user interfaces such as kiosks (par. 0026), where the user’s gaze is tracked in order to change the content of the display presentation (see for example pars. 0043, 0045, 0058, 0060, 0062, etc.). Krasadakis teaches that such a feature as numerous advantages including the ability to provide more relevant content to the user, improved data security, improved accuracy, etc. (see pars. 0005, 0022-0024). Artisans of ordinary skill in the art desiring to take advantage of these benefits would have therefore considered it obvious to include the claimed feature in the system of Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish.
Regarding claim 10, while Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish do not elaborate on how content is downloaded to the therapy booth system, the use of servers over cellular networks is an old and well-known technique commonly employed to provide content to user interfaces. The ability to access and download content over a cellular network to remote devices is the core function for any computerized central server. Krasadakis, for example, discloses that cellular networks and servers may be used to provide content to individual consumer devices (see for example pars. 0036-0045). Such a system allows data to be more easily collected, managed, monitored, updated and stored at a central location and is a basic requirement for most any Internet communication system, thus relieving the burden of storing and managing extensive content on each individual device and ensuring consistent operation. To employ such a feature in the system defined by Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish would have therefore been considered a matter of obvious design by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Rindal (Pub. No. 2019/0371449).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa does not discuss ending the message and music based on determining that the user is no longer in front of the interactive therapy booth.
Rindal, however, discloses a related therapy device wherein the system may enter into a sleep mode when the user is no longer detected in front of the interactive therapy booth (par. 0083). Such a mode saves energy, restricts the therapy to the intended individual, enhances patient privacy, and refreshes the system for usage by additional users when the system’s services are no longer desired by the initial user. Any artisan desiring to improve system performance and protect the patient’s privacy would have therefore considered such a feature as obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (Hsu: Pub. No. 2011/0320405).
Regarding claim 9, while Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish do not discuss the ability to unlock the insert/screen based on detection of the fingerprint of an administrative user, Hsu, however, discloses a kiosk wherein the display screen may be unlocked using fingerprint identification (see par. 0033). Such a feature prevents unauthorized removal of critical components of the system, while permitting authorized personnel to remove, replace, update and service the insert. Clearly artisans looking to enhance the serviceability, security and flexibility of publicly used devices would have considered such a known feature to be an obvious matter of design in the system defined by Ishikawa, D’Penha and Fish.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 13-16 above, and further in view of Trotta (Pat. No. 5,348,324).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above in the rejection of claims 2 and 8, D’Penha discloses that the stand upon which the shroud is supported, may be moveable (par. 0054). D’Penha thus discloses the feature of a shroud that is capable of being lowered or raised. While D’Penha does not specifically elaborate on the mechanism used to lower or raise the stand/shroud, it is old and well-known that motors may be used to automate the process. Trotta, for example, discloses a related interactive booth that employs a motor to adjust the height of the system in order to gain the advantage of accommodating a variety of users (see Fig. 5). The courts have determined that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, III). The point of activation would have also been considered an obvious matter of design because the location of the activation site would not have modified operation of the device (i.e., regardless of whether the activation occurs from the touchscreen or from any other location, the motor would engage and provide the necessary adjustment). The rearrangement of parts not affecting operation was held by the courts to be a matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa: WO 2021/261123) in view of D’Penha et al. (D’Penha: Pub. No. 2018/0295441), Fish et al. (Fish: Pub. No. 2020/0082919), Krebs et al. (Krebs: Pat. No. 11,631,068) and Labelle et al. (Labelle: WO 2013/163730) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cantor (Pub. No. 2018/0214343).
Regarding claim 12, Labelle discloses that a user may be presented with a map identifying at least one support opportunity (e.g., a list of emergency centers and surrounding hospitals that the user may travel to) based on the mental state of the user. While reference to a ride service is not made, Cantor ‘343 discloses a medical device that automatically contacts a ride-sharing service to transport a user that may not be in condition to drive, to a hospital/emergency treatment center (par. 0056). Those of ordinary skill in the art, recognizing that a user in a mental state requiring emergency services may not be able to safely drive themselves, and given the teachings of Labelle and Cantor, would have seen the obviousness of automatically enabling a ride-sharing service to transport the user for safety and expediency purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments directed to the use of a shroud for shielding a touchscreen from weather and sunlight, note the comments above. It is also noted that the privacy screen of D’Penha in combination with the parabolic receptacle 130 functions as a shroud in that it too is capable of shielding the touchscreen from weather and sunlight. Such a shroud is considered to create a three-sided arrangement with an open front and be of a depth of at least the panels 601, which would be expected to be at least 6” in width in order to allow the panels to effectively provide privacy to the user. Further, the depth of the recess within which the screen resides depends on the depth of the screen or monitor inserted therein. Further, contrary to the applicant’s assertion, a deep three-sided shroud would not defeat the acoustic characteristics of the system. Figs. 6A and 6B show speakers on either side of the display, along with privacy panels 601 that do not negatively affect the sound produced thereby. D’Penha, in fact states that such panels enhance the focusing and filtering aspects of the audio being delivered to users (par. 0068).
Regarding arguments centered around the use of a slider, note the rejection above.
The applicant further asserts that Ishikawa does not integrate lighting and music with appropriate messaging. Ishikawa, however, specifically teaches that content information is presented to a user based on their emotion information, wherein the content includes, “…for example, moving images, still images, sounds, music, texts, as well as information such as scents, temperatures, and lighting.”
Regarding the display of a map, Ishikawa discloses displaying a map where coordinates represent the emotional state of the subject (see Fig. 11). Such a map identifies at least one support opportunity based on the subject’s input, such as, for example, when the subject is stressed but desires to feel content, this is considered an opportunity to treat the subject with the goal of moving along a path to arrive at the desired emotion. Applicant should also note application of Labelle as it pertains to providing a map of support opportunities, including hospital locations.
Regarding claim 6 and the use of Krasadakis, the applicant states that Krasadakis only tracks the eyes as a security measure and said tracking has nothing to do with the content. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the paragraphs cited in the rejection of claim 6, Krasadakis tracks the eyes of a subject to allow content selection. If, for example, a subject gazes upon content featuring certain types of stocks, other related content may be delivered and/or queued (par. 0045). Thus the idea of selecting content based on a user’s gaze is taught in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pearlson ‘669, Burns ‘839, Tagawa ‘375, Shirbabadi ‘997 and Davis ‘495 disclose shrouded display devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY SCHAETZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-4954. The examiner can normally be reached 2nd Monday of the biweek and W-F.
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, David E. Hamaoui can be reached at 571 270 5625. 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.
/KENNEDY SCHAETZLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
KJS
March 21, 2026