DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/11/2026.
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 § 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 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 21-23, & 25-26 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 7-13 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 15-19 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, & 21-26 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A system for providing disability-tailored therapy for a mood disorder to a user having a physical disability with a presentation of the disability-tailored therapy compliant with accessibility requirements such that the presentation is accessible to the user having the physical disability, the system comprising:
memory;
a data storage device storing therapy modules and disability-specific inserts, the therapy modules associated with various mood disorders, the disability-specific inserts describing disability-tailored examples or situations based on various physical disability types and on the various mood disorders, each therapy module including a stock language section, an adjusted section, a related section, and a stressor section, the adjusted section configured to incorporate a disability-specific insert selected from the disability-specific inserts;
a processor coupled to the memory and programed with executable instructions, the executable instructions causing the processor to generate a disability-tailored therapy session for the user having the physical disability, the disability-tailored therapy session being generated from a particular therapy module selected based on the mood disorder of the user having the physical disability and from a particular disability-specific insert of the disability-specific inserts selected based on the mood disorder and the physical disability of the user; and
a user interface configured to request input from the user having the physical disability, the input identifying the physical disability of the user, the user interface further configured to automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration selected based on the physical disability of the user from a set of disability-tailored interface configurations for the various different physical disability types, the particular disability-tailored user interface configuration automatically tuning the user interface to be perceivable, operable and understandable to the user having the physical disability.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because obtaining a disability tailoring therapy session, delivering the therapy session to a user, and allowing a user to adjust the interface are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 7 & 15 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 16-19, 21-23, & 25-26 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2, 8, 16 recites a second user accessing the system, Claims 3, 9, 11, 17 recites the type of disability and using audio input, Claims 4-5, 10, 12-13, & 18-19 recites matching a coach with the user using user and coach attributes. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 7 & 15, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. (Currently Amended) A system for providing disability-tailored therapy for a mood disorder to a user having a physical disability with a presentation of the disability-tailored therapy compliant with accessibility requirements such that the presentation is accessible to the user having the physical disability, the system comprising:
memory;
a data storage device storing therapy modules and disability-specific inserts, the therapy modules associated with various mood disorders, the disability-specific inserts describing disability-tailored examples or situations based on various physical disability types and on the various mood disorders, each therapy module including a stock language section, an adjusted section, a related section, and a stressor section, the adjusted section configured to incorporate a disability-specific insert selected from the disability-specific inserts;
a processor coupled to the memory and programed with executable instructions, the executable instructions causing the processor to generate a disability-tailored therapy session for the user having the physical disability, the disability-tailored therapy session being generated from a particular therapy module selected based on the mood disorder of the user having the physical disability and from a particular disability-specific insert of the disability-specific inserts selected based on the mood disorder and the physical disability of the user; and
a user interface configured to request input from the user having the physical disability, the input identifying the physical disability of the user, the user interface further configured to automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration selected based on the physical disability of the user from a set of disability-tailored interface configurations for the various different physical disability types, the particular disability-tailored user interface configuration automatically tuning the user interface to be perceivable, operable and understandable to the user having the physical disability.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system, memory, processor, & input; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the user interface automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration, these limitations amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and are equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 7 & 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4-5, 12-13, & 18-19 recite using a machine learning model to match the user with a coach; however these limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 2-3, 10-11, 16, 21-23, 25-26 recite adjusting a user interface with accessibility adjustments such as screen-reader compatibility, captioning, high-contract or scalable text, voice-based control, audio-output mode, adjusting interface elements, however these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such as the Windows operating system (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these limitations merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and conventional activities as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the system, memory, processor, & input; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3, 10-11, 16, 21-23, 25-26 recite adjusting a user interface with accessibility adjustments such as captioning, high-contract or scalable text, voice-based control, audio-output mode, adjusting interface elements, however these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such as the Windows operating system (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these limitations merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. post-solution activity) where data is output (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The Examiner also asserts that these functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see https://www.ucdenver.edu/center-for-innovative-design-and-engineering/community-engagement/colorado-assistive-technology-act-program/technology-and-transition-to-employment/windows-accessibility accessible on Oct 2021).
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 7, & 15 recite in part “the user interface further configured to automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration selected based on the physical disability of the user from a set of disability-tailored interface configurations for the various different physical disability types, the particular disability-tailored user interface configuration automatically tuning the user interface to be perceivable, operable and understandable to the user having the physical disability.” The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide any description regarding disability-tailored interface configurations selected based on the physical disability of the user. Applicant’s specification describes “retrieving a disability-specific insert and modifying the therapy session by inserting the disability-specific insert into the adjusted section of the therapy session” see para. 51. There is no other description regarding how the user interface is automatically and responsively adjusted using disability-tailored interface configurations. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 16-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are also rejected due to their dependency from Claims 1, 7, & 15.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 21 describe a user interface enabling hands-free operation. The Examiner asserts that the specification fails to describe how the system provides hands-free operation via an interface. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 21 describe a user interface enabling hands-free operation. The Examiner asserts that the specification fails to describe how the system provides hands-free operation via an interface. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claim 26 describes providing scalable and high-contrast text modes for users with visual functional limitations. The Examiner asserts that the specification fails to describe how the system provides scalable and high-contrast text modes if a user has visual functional limitations. Appropriate clarification and correction is required
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 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.
The term “perceivable, operable, and understandable” in claims 1, 7, & 15 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “perceivable, operable, and understandable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 16-19, 21-23, & 25-26 are also rejected due to their dependency from Claims 1, 7, & 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-17, 21-23, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paull (US20220028528) in view of Ekron (US20060139312).
As per claim 1, Paull teaches a system for providing disability-tailored therapy for a mood disorder to a user having a physical disability with a presentation of the disability-tailored therapy compliant with accessibility requirements such that the presentation is accessible to the user having the physical disability, the system comprising:
memory (para. 91: system with memory);
a data storage device storing therapy modules and disability-specific inserts (para. 108: therapeutic module database stores therapy regimens), the therapy modules associated with various mood disorders, the disability-specific inserts describing disability-tailored examples or situations based on various physical disability types (para. 149: physical symptoms can be identified for patient including eye problems, joint problems, and pain) and on the various mood disorders (para. 149, 205, 276, 283, 292: system can identify symptoms and disorder and customize regimen by selecting various modules to deliver to patient; anxiety regimen provides specific activities based on symptoms and other patient data; pain management module focuses on user suffering from pain) each therapy module including a stock language section (Fig. 9A; para. 332: first lesion displayed in English), an adjusted section (para. 154-156: section to provided other relevant data), a related section (para. 154-156: section to provided other relevant data), and a stressor section (para. 151: section for stress data), the adjusted section configured to incorporate a disability-specific insert selected from the disability-specific inserts (para. 296: based on specific disability system adapts therapeutic regimen and outputs specific content based on the identified condition);
a processor coupled to the memory and programed with executable instructions (para. 91: processor with memory), the executable instructions causing the processor to generate a disability-tailored therapy session (para. 18: system generating therapy session for a user) for the user having the physical disability (para. 83, 205, 325: client device receives therapy session and receives input from user), the disability-tailored therapy session being generated from a particular therapy module selected based on the mood disorder of the user having the physical disability and from a particular disability-specific insert of the disability- specific inserts selected based on the mood disorder and the physical disability of the user (para. 205, 296: based on specific disability system adapts therapeutic regimen and outputs specific content based on the identified condition); and
a user interface configured to request input from the user having the physical disability, the input identifying the physical disability (para. 296: system receives input from user including symptom data such as pain), the user interface further configured to automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration (para. 110, 119-121, 165: adaptive intervention regimen includes plurality of interactive therapy modules; system adapts regimen to patient based on patient interaction data including illness data).
Paull does not expressly teach the user interface further configured to automatically and responsively present the disability-tailored therapy session using a particular disability-tailored interface configuration selected based on the physical disability of the user from a set of disability-tailored interface configurations for the various different physical disability types, the particular disability-tailored user interface configuration automatically tuning the user interface to be perceivable, operable and understandable to the user having the physical disability.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Ekron with Paull based on the motivation of providing web accessibility for people with disabilities using an accessibility graphical user interface (GUI) incorporated within websites. (Ekron – para. 4).
As per claim 2, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull teaches wherein the presentation is further configured to be accessible to a second user having a second physical disability (para. 23: system can be used by multiple client devices and users), and wherein the disability-tailored therapy session and user interface are adapted to provide accessibility adjustments for each user, the accessibility adjustments being automatically applied or user-selectable (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
As per claim 3, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull teaches wherein the physical disability of the user is a vision impairment (para. 149: eye impairments), and wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to adjust the presentation of the disability-tailored therapy session to an audio-centric output mode enabling hands-free navigation, selection of therapy modules, and real-time adjustment of accessibility settings (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
Claims 7 & 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 8 & 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 9, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 7. Paull teaches wherein the therapy comprises cognitive behavioral therapy to treat the user having the physical disability for anxiety and/or depression (para. 12: CBT delivered to patient) and the disability-tailored therapy session is generated from a disability-specific insert involving one or more disability-tailored examples or situations being configured to elicit, measure or guide an anxiety-based and/or depression-based emotional response from the user having the physical disability in a therapeutic context (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
As per claim 10, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 7. Paull teaches wherein the disability- tailored therapy session and user interface are configured to provide audio content (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
Paull does not expressly teach provide captioning of audio content.
Ekron, however, teaches to the accessibility GUI may enable website users to use text-to-speech software to hear the information while reading it visually or to use captions to read the information while hearing it (para. 84).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 3, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 17, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 15. Paull teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
present a second disability-tailored therapy session (para. 379: multiple therapy regimens can be generated and delivered to users),
wherein each of the first disability-tailored therapy session and the second disability-tailored therapy session have a respective purpose is configured to educate the user having the physical disability about one or more of a skills or a challenge, or a therapeutic strategy in the user's treatment for one or more mood disorders, and wherein the user interface is adapted to provide disability-centric accessibility adjustments in real-time to ensure functional access for the user (para. 379: each therapy regimen is personalized and is used to treat patients suffering from a wide variety of diseases and/or conditions).
As per claim 21, Paull discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the physical disability of the user is a mobility impairment, and wherein the executable instructions cause the processor to modify the therapy session interface by enlarging interactive elements, simplifying navigation pathways, and enabling alternative input mechanisms to facilitate hands-free or reduced-effort operation.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168). Ekron also teaches to adjusting various elements of the user interface including enlarging or reducing text size and images, customizing settings for fonts, colors, and spacing, text-to-speech synthesis of the content, providing audio descriptions of video in multimedia, reading text using refreshable Braille, and/or any other visual, audible, or tactile alteration (para. 82).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 22, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull teaches wherein the executable instructions cause the processor to provide text-based, visual prompts for timing or cue-based exercises and text-based communication options (para. 147, 200-21: therapy regimen delivered via interactive format including graphical and textual content for guiding exercises).
Paull does not expressly teach wherein the physical disability of the user is a hearing impairment and captioned equivalents of audio therapeutic content.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168). Ekron also teaches to adjusting various elements of the user interface including enlarging or reducing text size and images, customizing settings for fonts, colors, and spacing, text-to-speech synthesis of the content, providing audio descriptions of video in multimedia, reading text using refreshable Braille, and/or any other visual, audible, or tactile alteration (para. 82).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 23, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to implement text or caption equivalents of audio content.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168). Ekron also teaches to adjusting various elements of the user interface including enlarging or reducing text size and images, customizing settings for fonts, colors, and spacing, text-to-speech synthesis of the content, providing audio descriptions of video in multimedia, reading text using refreshable Braille, and/or any other visual, audible, or tactile alteration (para. 82).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 25, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the physical disability of the user is a vision impairment, and wherein the executable instructions cause the processor to transition the therapy session to an audio-centric presentation mode verbal delivery of therapeutic exercises.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168). Ekron also teaches to adjusting various elements of the user interface including enlarging or reducing text size and images, customizing settings for fonts, colors, and spacing, text-to-speech synthesis of the content, providing audio descriptions of video in multimedia, reading text using refreshable Braille, and/or any other visual, audible, or tactile alteration (para. 82).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 26, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the disability-tailored user interface further provides scalable and high-contrast text modes for users with visual functional limitations.
Ekron, however, teaches to altering display parameters for users with different impairments where a user can input their specific disability (para. 165). Ekron also teaches to the system using the input disability to select a profile from a set of stored profiles and adjusting a user interface based on the selected profile (para. 165-168). Ekron also teaches to adjusting various elements of the user interface including enlarging or reducing text size and images, customizing settings for fonts, colors, and spacing, text-to-speech synthesis of the content, providing audio descriptions of video in multimedia, reading text using refreshable Braille, and/or any other visual, audible, or tactile alteration (para. 82). Ekron also teaches to adjusting a text color parameter in the website code on a user session basis to increase a contrast between text and background (para. 11).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paull and Ekron as applied to claims 1, 7, & 15, and in further view of Kogan (US20220148699).
As per claim 4, Paull and Ekron teach the system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach
wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to match the user having the physical disability with one of a plurality of coaches, wherein each of the plurality of coaches is a person to encourage the user's engagement with the disability-tailored therapy, wherein matching the user having the physical disability with one of the plurality of coaches comprises:
receiving, by the processor, a plurality of coach information, each comprising multidimensional attributes associated with a respective coach, including disability-related experience, demographic information, learning style, and prior engagement outcomes, determining, by the processor, one of the plurality of coaches predicted to optimize therapeutic engagement for the user having the physical disability using a machine learning model and the plurality of coach information, and
presenting, by the user device, the determined coach for interaction with the user having the physical disability.
Kogan, however, teaches to pairing a user having a medical condition with a coach (para. 103). Kogan also teaches to where coach information is used to match the coach with the user using a machine learning algorithm and outputting the matched coach (para. 43, 103-106, 123). Kogan further teaches to training the model using a training data set (e.g., a first training data set including a respective user historical performance and wellness program historical performance) that includes one or more features identified from a data set (para. 123). The training data set includes data associated with a first user profile and data associated with user tendencies when engaging a first wellness program (para. 123). Kogan teaches to storing user data including condition, location, age, and lifestyle (para. 11). Kogan further teaches to storing coach data including specialty, education, and profession data (para. 104-105). Kogan does not expressly teach data comprising learning styles however these differences are only found in the non-functional information stored by the specified databases. The specific content, such as the learning style data, for the user and coach information are not functionally related to the functions of the system. Thus, this descriptive information will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 40, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Kogan with Paull and Ekron based on the motivation of encourage and improve engagement amongst clients and coaches, either collectively or individually, with a wellness system (Kogan – para. 8).
As per claim 5, Paull, Ekron, and Kogan teach the system of claim 4. Paull and Ekron do not expressly teach
wherein the user input further indicates demographic information and learning style of the user having the physical disability.
Kogan, however, teaches to pairing a user having a medical condition with a coach (para. 103). Kogan also teaches to where coach information is used to match the coach with the user using a machine learning algorithm and outputting the matched coach (para. 43, 103-106, 123). Kogan teaches to storing user data including condition, location, age, and lifestyle (para. 11). Kogan further teaches to storing coach data including specialty, education, and profession data (para. 104-105). Kogan does not expressly teach data comprising learning styles however these differences are only found in the non-functional information stored by the specified databases. The specific content, such as the learning style data & disability related attributes, for the user and coach information are not functionally related to the functions of the system. Thus, this descriptive information will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 40, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and incorporated herein.
Claims 12-13 & 18-19 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 4-5, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection on pages 11-14 in regards to Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 have been considered but are not persuasive. See updated 112(a) rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on pages 14-21 in regards to Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The system produces a specific technical result of providing a clinically differentiated therapeutic session accessible to a disabled user and its not achieved by any prior art combination.
The Examiner however asserts that the new limitations regarding adjusting the user interface amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” or (or an equivalent) as they attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations provide only a result-oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications. The Examiner further asserts that the analysis of novelty and/or if the limitation(s) are not taught by the prior art is separate and distinct from the analysis of patent-eligibility under U.S.C. 101. Claims directed to an abstract idea must recite features that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself in order to be transformed into a patent-eligible invention. In addition, the Examiner points out that judicial exceptions need not be old or long‐prevalent, and that even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formulas in Flook, were considered all novel, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” (see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591‐92 (1978)). Furthermore, Examiner also noted that under MPEP § 2106.05(a) in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion; MPEP 2106.07(a), however, states that there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence). Examiner also noted that recent PTAB decisions has indicated that there must be a requisite nexus between the declared improvement and the originally filed disclosure wherein said improvement is reflected in the claims. The Examiner argues that the user-interface elements in the claims are described at a high level of generality and fails to confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 103(a) rejections on pages 21-28 in regards to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Affidavits
The affidavits under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 6/11/2026 by Laura Randa, Brian Doan, Maria Town, and Amanda Mace are insufficient to overcome the 101, 103, and 112 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, 21-23, & 25-26 because affiant’s arguments are directed to an ultimate legal conclusion and in light of all the evidence of record in the application the affidavits are not persuasive. Furthermore, the 112 and 103 arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keene (US20180177973) teaches to methods of reducing anxiety and/or agitation in a subject, with a neurological disorder, or a subject undergoing therapy, comprising exposing the subject to reminiscence therapy via a digital therapeutic device. The digital therapeutic device can include a transceiver configured to communicate with a database and a first user device and a processor operatively coupled to the user interface, a microphone, a speaker, and the transceiver.
Shriberg (US20210110894) teaches to systems and methods for assessing a mental state of a subject in a single session or over multiple different sessions, using for example an automated module to present and/or formulate at least one query based in part on one or more target mental states to be assessed.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights