DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, & 21-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
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, & 21-26 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 & 21-26 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 include 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 device configured to request input from the user having the physical disability, the input identifying the physical disability, the user device further configured to present the disability-tailored therapy session using a disability-tailored user interface selected based on the physical disability, the disability-tailored user interface providing control mechanisms based on the physical disability to enable the user having the physical disability to make real-time disability-centric adjustments to the presentation of the disability- tailored therapy session in view of 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, & 21-26 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, 24 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 include 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 device configured to request input from the user having the physical disability, the input identifying the physical disability, the user device further configured to present the disability-tailored therapy session using a disability-tailored user interface selected based on the physical disability, the disability-tailored user interface providing control mechanisms based on the physical disability to enable the user having the physical disability to make real-time disability-centric adjustments to the presentation of the disability- tailored therapy session in view of 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, user device, & 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 providing control mechanisms to enable the user to make adjustments to the presentation of the therapy session; the Examiner asserts that this 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)).
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, 24 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, user device, & 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 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 (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, & 21-26 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, & 21-26 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, and 15 recite selecting a disability-tailored user interface base d on a physical disability and where the user interface provides control mechanisms to enable the user to make real-time disability-centric adjustments to the presentation of the therapy session. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide description regarding how the user interface is selected based on a physical disability and providing controls allowing a user to make real-time adjustments to the display of the session. Claims 2-3, 10, 11, 16, 21, 23, 25 and 26 recites using screen-reading compatibility, audio navigation cues, voice-based control or haptic feedback. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide description regarding screen-reading compatibility, navigation cues, voice-based control or haptic feedback. Claims 4, 12, & 18 recite using a machine learning model trained on historical coach and user engagement data and the machine learning model predicting the coach based on one or more user-specific variables. The Examiner asserts that the specification only describes using a machine learning model algorithm to match a user and a coach. There is no description on how the machine learning is trained on coach and user data and where the machine learning model predicting the coach based on one or more user-specific variables. Claim 24 recites generating a prediction score for each coach and selecting the coach with the highest predicted efficacy. The Examiner asserts that the specification does not provide description regarding generating a prediction score for each coach and selecting the coach with the highest predicted efficacy. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 16-19, & 21-26 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 Sinclair (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 include 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 device 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 device further configured to present the disability-tailored therapy session using a disability-tailored user interface selected based on the physical disability (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 disability-tailored user interface providing control mechanisms based on the physical disability to enable the user having the physical disability to make real-time disability-centric adjustments to the presentation of the disability- tailored therapy session in view of the physical disability.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8).
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 Sinclair with Paull based on the motivation of automatically detect problems during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (Sinclair – para. 8.
As per claim 2, Paull and Sinclair 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 and comprising one or more of screen-reader compatibility, alternative input navigation, captioning of audio content, high-contrast or scalable text modes, voice-based control, haptic feedback, or other assistive technology features, to ensure full functional access to the therapy session for both the first and second users regardless of the type or severity of their physical disabilities (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
As per claim 3, Paull and Sinclair teach the system of claim 1. Paull teaches wherein the physical disability 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 comprising spoken navigation cues, audio descriptions of visual elements, and verbal delivery of therapeutic content (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
Paull does not expressly teach the control mechanisms include voice-based controls enabling hands-free navigation, selection of therapy modules, and real-time adjustment of accessibility settings.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
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 Sinclair 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 Sinclair teach the system of claim 7. Paull teaches wherein the disability- tailored therapy session and user interface are configured to provide accessibility adjustments, the accessibility adjustments being automatically applied or user-selectable and comprising one or more of: screen-reader compatibility, alternative input navigation, captioning of audio content, high-contrast or scalable text modes, voice-based control, haptic feedback, or other assistive technology features, to ensure functional access to the therapy session regardless of the type or severity of the physical disability (para. 291: therapy session can be delivered via audio output).
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 Sinclair 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 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 including voice-control and switch-control interfaces to facilitate hands-free or reduced-effort operation.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems, including various disabilities such as vision, mobility of hearing, during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8, 110). Sinclair further teaches to modifying display elements by changing size (para. 222) and removing elements (para. 204).
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 Sinclair 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 is a hearing impairment and captioned equivalents of audio therapeutic content.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems, including various disabilities such as vision, mobility of hearing, during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 239-242, 110). Sinclair further teaches to providing captioning to video elements (para. 240).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 23, Paull and Sinclair teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to implement a set of accessibility adaptations that are automatically activated or user-selectable based on a reported disability, the accessibility adaptations comprising one or more of audio-centric presentation modes, voice-based control mechanisms, enlarged or alternative input pathways, text or caption equivalents of audio content, screen-reader compatibility, scalable text rendering, and high-contrast visual modes.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems, including various disabilities such as vision, mobility of hearing, during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8, 110). Sinclair further teaches to modifying display elements by changing size (para. 222) and removing elements (para. 204).
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 Sinclair teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the physical disability is a vision impairment, and wherein the executable instructions cause the processor to transition the therapy session to an audio-centric presentation mode including spoken prompts, audio descriptions of interface elements, and verbal delivery of therapeutic exercises; and wherein the control mechanisms comprise voice-based controls for navigation and real-time adjustment of accessibility parameters.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems, including various disabilities such as vision, mobility of hearing, during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8, 110). Sinclair further teaches to providing screen reading compatibility via text to speech, scalable and high contrast display (para. 188-194, 235-238).
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 Sinclair teach the system of claim 1. Paull does not expressly teach wherein the disability-tailored user interface further provides screen-reader compatibility, scalable and high-contrast text modes, and optional haptic or simplified input mechanisms to ensure full therapeutic engagement for users with visual functional limitations.
Sinclair, however, teaches to personalization of user accessibility options where a user can use various input devices such as voice to provide input (para. 171). Sinclair also teaches to automatically detect these types of problems, including various disabilities such as vision, mobility of hearing, during the users' natural course of interaction with the system and offer to make adjustments to make their tasks such as typing on the keyboard simpler and more enjoyable (para. 8, 110). Sinclair further teaches to providing screen reading compatibility via text to speech, scalable and high contrast display (para. 188-194, 235-238).
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, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paull and Sinclair as applied to claims 1, 7, & 15, and in further view of Kogan (US20220148699).
As per claim 4, Paull and Sinclair 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 trained on historical coach and user engagement data, the machine learning model configured to predict the one of the plurality of coaches based on one or more user-specific variables including disability type, accessibility needs, the communication preferences, and prior engagement patterns, 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 Sinclair 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, Sinclair, and Kogan teach the system of claim 4. Paull and Sinclair do not expressly teach
wherein the user input further indicates demographic information and learning style, and wherein the plurality of coach information comprises, for each coach, demographic information, learning style and disability related attributes.
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.
As per claim 24, Paull and Sinclair teach the system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach
wherein the processor is further configured to match the user having the physical disability with a coach by executing a machine-learning model trained on multidimensional coach and user engagement data, the machine-learning model generating a prediction score for each coach and selecting the coach with the highest predicted engagement efficacy for that user's physical disability and accessibility profile.
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). Kogan teaches to storing user data including condition, location, age, and lifestyle (para. 11). Kogan also teaches to generating a score for each coach and using the score to match a client with the best coach (para. 9).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on pages 11-14 in regards to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, & 21-26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The system improves user access and control by users with disabilities and therefore provides a practical application and is significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 103(a) rejections on pages 15-18 in regards to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-19, & 21-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the amended 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.
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