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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 22. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one biofeedback detector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-36 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 13, and 25, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity; and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment which has held by the CAFC to be abstract in, e.g., Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp (2023-2437; 4/18/25), in terms of the Applicant claiming, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
A method comprising:
a) […] evaluat[ing] an input of one or more patient eating behaviors;
b) determining […] a patient eating disorder based at least in part upon the input;
c) determining […] a target eating behavior based, at least in part, upon the patient eating disorder;
d) generating […] a […] scenario for training the patient to accomplish the target eating behavior;
e) presenting the […] scenario to the patient […] wherein the […] scenario allows the patient to interact […]to [simulate] accomplish[ing] the target eating behavior;
f) monitoring […] one or more patient actions within the […] scenario; and
g) providing […] feedback to the patient […] based upon the one or more patient actions within the […] scenario, said feedback being configured to encourage the target eating behavior.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer instructions stored on a computer readable medium that are executed by the processor of a computing system in “real time”; employing virtual reality; and/or a biofeedback detector; these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer instructions stored on a computer readable medium that are executed by the processor of a computing system in “real time”; employing virtual reality; and/or a biofeedback detector; these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-15, 18-27, and 30-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210008330 A1 by Manasse et al (“Manasse”), in view of PGPUB US 20160140864 A1 by Forman et al (“Forman”).
In regard to Claim 1, Manasse teaches a system comprising:
a virtual reality device configured to display a virtual reality interface to a patient;
(see, e.g., F6, 602);
a computing system coupled to the virtual reality device, the computing system comprising:
a) a processor; and
b) a computer readable medium in communication with the processor, the computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of instructions executable by the processor to:
(see, e.g., F6, 606);
[…]
3) determine a target eating behavior based, at least in part, on the patient eating disorder;
(see, e.g., F5, 502 and p24);
4) generate a virtual scenario for training the patient to accomplish the target eating behavior;
(see, e.g., F5, 502 and p24);
5) present the virtual scenario to the patient through the virtual reality interface, wherein the virtual scenario allows the patient to virtually accomplish the target eating behavior;
(see, e.g., F5, 504 and p25);
6) monitor one or more patient actions within the virtual scenario through the virtual reality interface; and
(see, e.g., F5, 506 and 26);
7) provide real-time feedback to the patient, through the virtual reality interface, based on the one or more patient actions within the virtual scenario, said real-time feedback being configured to encourage the target eating behavior
(see, e.g., F5, 508 and 510);
Furthermore, to the extent that the otherwise cited prior art may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Forman teaches determining that a user has an eating disorder based upon the input of one or more user eating behaviors (see, e.g., F2, 210 and p21);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the functionality taught by Forman to the system taught by the otherwise cited prior art, in order to tailor the VR treatment more precisely.
In regard to Claim 2, Forman teaches this functionality. See, e.g., p8.
In regard to Claim 3, Manasse teaches this functionality. See, e.g., F2.
In regard to Claims 6-7, Manasse teaches this functionality. See, e.g., p24-26. Furthermore, to the extent that Manasse may fail to teach the specifically claimed visual appearance of the display that does not distinguish over the cited prior art to the extent that said visual display does not have a functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claims 8-9, Forman teaches this functionality. See, e.g., p57.
In regard to Claim 10, Manasse teaches this providing certain visuals during the VR experience. See, e.g., p24-26. Furthermore, to the extent that Manasse may fail to teach the specifically claimed visual appearance of the display that does not distinguish over the cited prior art to the extent that said visual display does not have a functional relationship to the computer display upon which it appears. See MPEP 2111.05.
In regard to Claim 11, Manasse teaches this functionality. See, e.g., p27.
In regard to Claim 12, Manasse teaches this functionality. See, e.g., p24-26.
In regard to Claims 13-15, see rejection of Claims 1-3.
In regard to Claims 18-24, see rejection of Claims 6-12.
In regard to Claims 25-27, see rejection of Claims 1-3.
In regard to Claims 30-36, see rejection of Claims 6-12.
Claims 4-5, 16-17, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manasse, in view of Forman, further in view of official notice.
In regard to Claims 4-5, 16-17, and 28-29, while Manasse teaches altering the user’s experience based on his/her performance (see, e.g., p28) it may not specifically teach capturing data via the claimed biofeedback detector to do so
the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that employing such a biofeedback detector was old and well-known at the time of Applicant’s filing its invention. Such functionality allows for better customization of the VR experience based on the user’s reactions. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the claimed functionality within the invention of the cited prior art so as to allow for better customization of the VR experience based on the user’s reactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715