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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 47-166 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of November 6, 2025 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on January 8, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending certain claims but not canceling or adding any claims.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 47-166 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
On pages 33-34 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that Cocco merely relies on historical data to identify potential patterns and does not prompt the user to indicate the current migraine status of the user as called for in independent claim 47. The Examiner disagrees. Initially, Figure 2 and [0067], [0070], [0077] illustrate/discuss receiving real-time (i.e., current) patient data 120 from the user's mobile computing device and storing in patient feedback/survey datasets 213/215 while [0080] discusses how the feedback dataset 213 can include frequency/duration of migraine pain and [0083] discusses how the survey dataset can include current migraine status/symptoms, all of which would necessarily be indicative of an onset, presence, or absence of a migraine. Accordingly, Cocco discloses receiving real-time/current migraine status/state of the user. Furthermore, the user's mobile computing device would necessarily include a prompt, text field, or selectable item ("GUI elements") to capture such current/real-time migraine state of the user because that is how mobile computing devices function to collect data from a user. Also note how [0074], [0182] disclose prompting the patient for survey/feedback information.
The 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 47, 50-55, 57-59, 61-63, 66-71, 73-75, 77-79, 82-85, 88-90, 92-94, 97-100, 103-105, 107-109, 112-117, 119-121, 123, 124, 127-132, 134-136, 138, 139, 142-145, 148-150, 152, 153, 156-159, 162-164, and 166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0392596 to Cocco et al. (“Cocco”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Paulina et al. ("Paulina") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110126 to Sparks ("Sparks"):
Regarding claim 47, Cocco discloses a system for dynamically providing messages ([0012], [0037]-[0045], [0064], [0156], [0206] discuss providing digital therapeutics including messages/communications to a user to address migraine headaches), comprising:
a computing system having one or more processors coupled with memory, configured to (computing system 100 in Figure 1 includes processor(s) 11 coupled with memory 18):
maintain, on a database of a server, a plurality of activities to address migraines in a user at risk thereof ([0190] discloses a list of therapeutic interventions ("activities") for migraines/headaches which would be stored in a database (e.g., an application to store/manage/retrieve data) in storage 19 or memory 18 in Figure 1 which, in combination with the processor(s) 11, amounts to a "server" because it amounts to computer/device on a network (network 20) that interacts with other computing devices (e.g., user device 30, remote device 40, etc.)), where the interventions can include breathing, exercise, stretching, etc. (“activities”) per [0148]), each of the plurality of activities having a plurality of messages ([0094], [0156], [0210] discuss how the interventions/activities can be conveyed to users through digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications) and a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity (([0193] discusses employing a regression model and applying weighted values to potential interventions to select inventions based on correlations and content method/type (based on messages), where use of a regression model and correlations would necessarily utilize “rules” (e.g., instructions, logic, etc.; also, [0235] discloses use of rules to analyze patient datasets to optimize care delivery; still further, [0204]-[0207] discusses selecting notifications/messages using a notification manager that processes data and develops a model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered; use of the model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered would necessarily employ rules; still further, [204]-[0207] discloses selecting notification type based on feedback, adherence, log of use, and supplementary datasets, where such notification selection would proceed according to a set of rules including a criteria for selection of a message for the activity (e.g., when the feedback, adherence, log of use, and supplementary datasets indicate that a text message should be sent, then the "criteria" for selection of the text message for the intervention has been met);
maintain at a first time, …, a subset of the plurality of activities ([0190] discloses filtering a list of therapeutic interventions/activities which results in a "subset" of the plurality of activities at some "first time");
present, via one or more graphic user interface (GUI) elements of a user interface of the user device, one or more inquiries prompting the user to identify a current migraine state of the user, the one or more GUI elements corresponding to at least one of a prompt, a text field, or a selectable item to capture the current migraine state, the current migraine state being at least one of an onset, a presence, or an absence of a migraine (the smartphone/UI/user device in [0070]-[0083], [0218], and Figure 1 receives real-time/current patient data per [0067], [0070], [0077] regarding frequency/duration of headache ([0080]) and current migraine status/state/symptoms ([0083]), where the smartphone/UI/user device would necessarily include a prompt, text field, or selectable item ("GUI elements") to capture such current/real-time migraine state of the user (also note how [0074], [0182] disclose prompting the patient for survey/feedback information) which is necessarily indicative of an onset, presence, or absence of a migraine (also, [0132] and [0140] disclose onset));
receive, via the one or more GUI elements of the user interface, the current migraine state of the user (the real-time/current migraine state is received from GUI elements of the user interface per [0067]-[0083], [0218] as noted above);
select, in response to the current migraine state of the user identified by the user, an activity from the plurality of activities to provide to the user ([0144]-[0146] discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified/selected (and generated/provided per [0195]) based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) and 215 (survey dataset) which includes frequency/duration of headache ([0080]) and current migraine status/state/symptoms ([0083]) and which are received in real-time as noted above per [0067], [0070], [0077] (such that they are current migraine states identified by the user));
identify, in accordance with the set of rules for the activity, a message from the plurality of messages ([0204]-[0207] discusses selecting notifications/messages using a notification manager that processes data and develops a model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered; use of the model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered would necessarily employ rules; also, [0193] discusses employing a regression model and applying weighted values to potential interventions to select inventions based on correlations and content method/type (based on messages), where use of a regression model and correlations would necessarily utilize “rules” (e.g., instructions, logic, etc.));
cause the message identifying the activity to be presented via the user interface ([0217], [0222] discuss how the notification (which identifies the activity per [0094], [0156], [0210]) is sent to the patient’s mobile computing device (which would be via its UI)); and
maintain at a second time…by updating the subset of the plurality of activities based on at least one of the current migraine state, the selected activity, or the message presented ([0145], [0181], [0218], [0223] disclose collecting real-time patient data and patient feedback based on the intervention notification and determining updated intervention/activity parameters (updating the subset of activities based on the current migraine state, the selected activity, or the message presented (as the interventions/activities include messages per [0204]-[0207]) in a continuous loop (such that the updated subset is maintained at a second time)).
While Cocco discloses how the interventions/activities can be conveyed to users through digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications ([0094], [0156], [0210]) and how a set of rules including criteria for selection of the message for the activities can be implemented (see [0204]-[0207] as discussed above), Cocco might be silent specifically regarding each of the plurality of activities having … a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity. In other words, Cocco might be silent regarding each activity having a respective set of rules including at least one criteria for selection of messages for the particular activity.
Nevertheless, Paulina teaches ([0083]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a computing device to maintain a plurality of rules that specify a particular type/format of message to output to a user based on a particular type of information to be output (wherein the information type can correspond to physical activities/exercises per [0035]) and a motivational state of the user. In this regard, upon a particular type of information to be output and the user being in a particular motivational state (criteria), a particular form/type of message is determined to be output to convey the information. This arrangement advantageously increases the likelihood of inducing positive behavioral change in the use in furtherance of a treatment plan ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for plurality of activities of Cocco to have a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity similar to as taught by Paulina to advantageously increase the likelihood of inducing positive behavioral change in the use in furtherance of a treatment plan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, while the Cocco/Paulina combination discloses maintaining a subset of the activities in a first time and an updated subset of the activities at a second time as discussed above, the Cocco/Paulina combination might be silent regarding the subset and updated subset specifically being maintained on a database of [the] user device in communication with the server.
Nevertheless, Sparks teaches ([0025]-[0026], [0033], [0069], and Figure 3) that it was known in the digital media content distribution art to store a plurality of media files on a database of a server, transfer and store a subset of the plurality of media files on a mobile device (necessarily in some organized collection (database) in storage thereon at a first time), and periodically thereafter ([0054]-[0056]) remove/add media from/to the subset on the mobile device ("update" the subset on the database of the mobile device at a "second time") to advantageously avoid increased usage of local storage on the mobile device while maintaining relevant media content for quick loading ([0013], [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the subset and updated subset on a database of the user device in communication with the server in the system of the Cocco/Paulina combination similar to as taught by Sparks to advantageously avoid increased usage of local storage on the user device while maintaining relevant activities for quick loading. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 50, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to select, in response to the current migraine state of the user, the activity from the plurality of activities, wherein the plurality of activities comprises (i) a first activity having the plurality of messages associated with preventing the onset of the migraine, (ii) a second activity having the plurality of messages associated with alleviating the presence of the migraine, or (iii) a third activity having the plurality of messages associated with maintaining the absence of the migraine ([0119] of Cocco discloses how interventions (which includes activities per [0148]-[0149]) can mitigate future onset of the migraine/headache while [0148]-[0149] discloses how the therapeutic interventions (activities) can improve migraine/headache metrics (alleviate presence of migraine); furthermore, [0094], [0156], [0210] discuss how the interventions/activities can be conveyed to users through digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications).
Regarding claim 51, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
receive, via the user interface, a response identifying an activity performed by the user in response to presentation of the message of the activity ([0080] and [0095] of Cocco discuss receiving feedback responses from the patient (which is via the patient’s mobile device per [0077] which includes a UI) regarding digital therapeutic activity (regarding activities performed by the patient) such as interest in specific activities, positive experiences, etc., where the activities are associated with presentation of messages as discussed above per [0094], [0156], [0210]); and
update, on the database of the server or the user device, a profile of the user to include the response identifying the activity performed by the user ([0080] and [0082] of Cocco disclose storing the patient feedback responses in patient feedback dataset 213 (updating user profile) which would be stored in a database (e.g., an application to store/manage/retrieve data) in storage 19 or memory 18 in Figure 1)).
Regarding claim 52, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to identify the message from the plurality of messages for the activity in accordance with the set of rules based on at least one of (i) a selection of a second activity for a prior message, (ii) a response by the user to a presentation of the prior message, (iii) a number of activities performed by the user, or (iv) a taking of a medication by the user ([0205]-[0207] of Cocco discuss selecting notifications/messages in accordance with the model (rules) based on feedback regarding prior notifications/messages; also, [0190] notes how therapeutic interventions can be selected based on medication use; accordingly, the digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications of the intervention/activity per [0094], [0156], [0210] is thus selected based on the medication use).
Regarding claim 53, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to identify, in accordance with the set of rules, a group of messages from the plurality of messages to present within a time duration ([0214] of Cocco discloses transmitting notifications (group of messages) to the patient’s mobile device at an optimal time period (within a time duration) to increase adherence and quality of life while claim 5 discloses scheduling the transmission of notifications (group of messages) which would be within some time duration; also, the notifications are selected in accordance with the model (rules) per [0205]-[0207]).
Regarding claim 54, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to select the activity from the plurality of activities based on at least one of (i) a number of occurrences of the migraine in the user, (ii) a duration of a prior occurrence of the migraine, or (iii) a taking of a medication by the user ([0080] of Cocco discloses how feedback dataset 213 can include frequency and duration of migraine headache while [0145] discloses how interventions can be identified based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) which includes the frequency and duration of migraine per [0080]; also, [0190] notes how therapeutic interventions can be selected based on medication use).
Regarding claim 55, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to provide, to an application on a user device, an instruction for presentation of the message to the user associated with the application ([0217], [0222] of Cocco discuss how the notification (which identifies the activity per [0094], [0156], [0210]) is sent to the patient’s mobile computing device via a digital therapeutic application per [0067], [0075], and [0217]-[0218]).
Regarding claim 57, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify at least one characteristic of the user from a plurality of characteristics to be assessed, the plurality of characteristics including one or more of a migraine symptom, a vocal biomarker, a mood, and an engagement level (again, [0190]-[0193] of Cocco disclose identifying a patient’s migraine/headache types and symptoms (characteristics); also, [0080], [0083] discusses how users can provide feedback and responses to surveys including migraine/headache status, pain level, root cause, mood, etc. (“characteristics”); and
select in response to the at least one characteristic and the current migraine state, the activity from the plurality of activities ([0144] of Cocco discloses select therapeutic interventions (activities) based on the patient’s migraine/headache profile (which includes characteristics per [0103]); [0190] discusses filtering the list of therapeutic interventions based on migraine/headache type/symptoms (which includes characteristics); and [0198] discloses determining interventions based on migraine/headache type; (which includes characteristics); also, [0145] discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) which includes migraine/headache state/characteristics per [0080]).
Regarding claim 58, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the user is on a medication to address the migraine at least in partial concurrence with the activity ([0190] of Cocco notes how therapeutic interventions can be selected based on medication use while [0093], [0095], [0099] discuss how patients can take medications for migraine/headache symptoms; also, [0095] and [0210] disclose how patients can be taking medications and engaging in therapeutic interventions (activities)).
Regarding claim 59, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 58, further including wherein the medication comprises at least one of a triptan, an ibuprofen, an ergot, or a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor ([0098] of Cocco discloses ibuprofen).
Regarding claim 61 the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the migraine lasts at least 4 hours ([0098] of Cocco discloses the pain lasting over 72 hours; also, [0103] discloses migraine/headache duration lasting days).
Regarding claim 62, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein a symptom of the migraine comprises one or more of: a pulsating quality, nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to sound, sensitivity to light, numbness, worsened pain as a result of physical activity, or avoidance of physical activity due to migraine pain ([0108] of Cocco discloses nausea, [0160] discloses nausea and vomiting, [0003] discloses sound and light sensitivity and pain).
Claims 63, 66-71, 73, 74, 75, 77, and 78 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 47, 50-55, 57-59, 61, and 62.
Regarding claim 79, Cocco discloses a system for dynamically providing messages ([0012], [0037]-[0045], [0064], [0156], [0206] discuss providing digital therapeutics including messages/communications to a user to address migraines/headaches), comprising:
a computing system having one or more processors coupled with memory, configured to (computing system 100 in Figure 1 includes processor(s) 11 coupled with memory 18):
maintain, on a database of a server, an identification of a plurality of activities to address migraines in a user at risk thereof ([0190] discloses a list of therapeutic interventions ("activities") for migraines/headaches which would be stored in a database (e.g., an application to store/manage/retrieve data) in storage 19 or memory 18 in Figure 1 which, in combination with the processor(s) 11, amounts to a "server" because it amounts to computer/device on a network (network 20) that interacts with other computing devices (e.g., user device 30, remote device 40, etc.)), where the interventions can include breathing, exercise, stretching, etc. (“activities”) per [0148]), each of the plurality of activities having a plurality of messages ([0094], [0156], [0210] discuss how the interventions/activities can be conveyed to users through digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications) and a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity (([0193] discusses employing a regression model and applying weighted values to potential interventions to select inventions based on correlations and content method/type (based on messages), where use of a regression model and correlations would necessarily utilize “rules” (e.g., instructions, logic, etc.; also, [0235] discloses use of rules to analyze patient datasets to optimize care delivery; still further, [0204]-[0207] discusses selecting notifications/messages using a notification manager that processes data and develops a model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered; use of the model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered would necessarily employ rules; still further, [204]-[0207] discloses selecting notification type based on feedback, adherence, log of use, and supplementary datasets, where such notification selection would proceed according to a set of rules including a criteria for selection of a message for the activity (e.g., when the feedback, adherence, log of use, and supplementary datasets indicate that a text message should be sent, then the "criteria" for selection of the text message for the intervention has been met);
maintain at a first time, …, a subset of the plurality of activities ([0190] discloses filtering a list of therapeutic interventions/activities which results in a "subset" of the plurality of activities at some "first time");
present, via one or more graphic user interface (GUI) elements of a user interface of the user device, one or more inquiries prompting the user to identify at least one of a plurality of current emotional states of the user, the one or more GUI elements corresponding to at least one of a prompt, a text field, or a selectable item to capture at least one of the plurality of current emotional states (the smartphone/UI/user device in [0070]-[0083], [0218], and Figure 1 receives real-time/current patient data per [0067], [0070], [0077] regarding feedback 213 including emotional health ([0080], [0182]) and survey data 215 regarding mental health, mood, etc. ([0083]), where the smartphone/UI/user device would necessarily include a prompt, text field, or selectable item ("GUI elements") to capture such current/real-time emotional state of the user; also note how [0074], [0182] disclose prompting the patient for survey/feedback information);
receive, via the one or more GUI elements of the user interface, at least one of a plurality of current emotional states of the user (the one or more real-time/current emotional states are received from GUI elements of the user interface per [0067]-[0083], [0218] as noted above);
select, in response to at least one of the plurality of current emotional states of the user identified by the user, an activity from the plurality of activities to provide to the user ([0145]-[0146] discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified/selected (and generated/provided per [0195]) based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) and 215 (survey dataset) which includes emotional states per [0080] and [0083] and which are received in real-time as noted above per [0067], [0070], [0077] (such that they are current emotional states identified by the user));
identify, in accordance with the set of rules for the activity, a message from the plurality of messages ([0204]-[0207] discusses selecting notifications/messages using a notification manager that processes data and develops a model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered; use of the model to determine notifications/messages to be delivered would necessarily employ rules; also, [0193] discusses employing a regression model and applying weighted values to potential interventions to select inventions based on correlations and content method/type (based on messages), where use of a regression model and correlations would necessarily utilize “rules” (e.g., instructions, logic, etc.));
cause the message identifying the activity to be presented via the user interface ([0217], [0222] discuss how the notification (which identifies the activity per [0094], [0156], [0210]) is sent to the patient’s mobile computing device (which would be via its UI)); and
maintain at a second time…by updating the subset of the plurality of activities based on at least one of the plurality of current emotional states, the selected activity, or the message presented ([0145], [0181], [0218], [0223] disclose collecting real-time patient data and patient feedback based on the intervention notification and determining updated intervention/activity parameters (updating the subset of activities based on at least one of the plurality of current emotional states, the selected activity, or the message presented (as the interventions/activities include messages per [0204]-[0207]) in a continuous loop (such that the updated subset is maintained at a second time)).
While Cocco discloses how the interventions/activities can be conveyed to users through digital communications/content/messaging/alerts/notifications ([0094], [0156], [0210]) and how a set of rules including criteria for selection of the message for the activities can be implemented (see [0204]-[0207] as discussed above), Cocco might be silent specifically regarding each of the plurality of activities having … a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity. In other words, Cocco might be silent regarding each activity having a respective set of rules including at least one criteria for selection of messages for the particular activity.
Nevertheless, Paulina teaches ([0083]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art for a computing device to maintain a plurality of rules that specify a particular type/format of message to output to a user based on a particular type of information to be output (wherein the information type can correspond to physical activities/exercises per [0035]) and a motivational state of the user. In this regard, upon a particular type of information to be output and the user being in a particular motivational state (criteria), a particular form/type of message is determined to be output to convey the information. This arrangement advantageously increases the likelihood of inducing positive behavioral change in the use in furtherance of a treatment plan ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for plurality of activities of Cocco to have a set of rules comprising at least one criteria corresponding to a selection of at least one message for the activity similar to as taught by Paulina to advantageously increase the likelihood of inducing positive behavioral change in the use in furtherance of a treatment plan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Furthermore, while the Cocco/Paulina combination discloses maintaining a subset of the activities in a first time and an updated subset of the activities at a second time as discussed above, the Cocco/Paulina combination might be silent regarding the subset and updated subset specifically being maintained on a database of [the] user device in communication with the server.
Nevertheless, Sparks teaches ([0025]-[0026], [0033], [0069], and Figure 3) that it was known in the digital media content distribution art to store a plurality of media files on a database of a server, transfer and store a subset of the plurality of media files on a mobile device (necessarily in some organized collection (database) in storage thereon at a first time), and periodically thereafter ([0054]-[0056]) remove/add media from/to the subset on the mobile device ("update" the subset on the database of the mobile device at a "second time") to advantageously avoid increased usage of local storage on the mobile device while maintaining relevant media content for quick loading ([0013], [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the subset and updated subset on a database of the user device in communication with the server in the system of the Cocco/Paulina combination similar to as taught by Sparks to advantageously avoid increased usage of local storage on the user device while maintaining relevant activities for quick loading. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 82, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 79, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify a migraine state of the user; the migraine state being at least one of an onset, a presence, or an absence of a migraine ([0190]-[0193] of Cocco disclose identifying a patient’s migraine/headache types and symptoms while [0118], [0120], and [0128]-[0132] discuss determining a status/status/stage of the user’s migraine/headache such as onset/presence for use in determining therapeutic interventions); and
select, in response to the migraine state and at least one of the plurality of current emotional states of the user, the activity from the plurality of activities ([0145] of Cocco discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) which includes emotional states and the migraine/headache state per [0080], [0083]).
Regarding claim 83, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 79, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify at least one characteristic of the user from a plurality of characteristics to be assessed, the plurality of characteristics including one or more of a migraine symptom, a vocal biomarker, a mood, and an engagement level (again, [0190]-[0193] of Cocco discloses identifying a patient’s migraine/headache types and symptoms (characteristics); also, [0080], [0083] discuss how users can provide feedback and responses to surveys including migraine status, pain level, root cause, mood, etc. (“characteristics”);
select, in response to the at least one characteristic and at least one of the plurality of current emotional states of the user, the activity from the plurality of activities ([0145] of Cocco discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) and survey dataset 215 which includes emotional states and the migraine/headache state/symptoms/characteristics per [0080], [0083], where the emotional states are "current" emotional states as they are received in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] as discussed above).
Regarding claim 84, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 79, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify (i) at least one characteristic of the user from a plurality of characteristics to be assessed and (ii) a migraine state of the user ([0080], [0083] of Cocco discusses how users can provide feedback and responses to surveys including migraine/headache status (“migraine/headache state”) and pain level, root cause, mood, anxiety, weight gain, willpower, etc. (“characteristics”); and
select the activity in response to a combination of at least one of the plurality of current emotional states, the at least one characteristic, and the migraine state ([0145] of Cocco discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified based on datasets 213 (feedback dataset) and 215 (survey dataset) which includes emotional health/state, migraine/headache status/state/characteristics, and mood/anxiety/weight gain/characteristics per [0080] and [0083], where the emotional states are "current" emotional states as they are received in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] as discussed above).
Claims 85, 88-90, 92, and 93 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 53, 51, and 58-62.
Claims 94, 97-100, 103-105, 107, and 108 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 79, 82-85, 88-90, 92, and 93.
Claims 109, 112-117, 119-121, and 123 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 47, 50-55, 57-59, and 61.
Claims 124, 127-132, 134-136, and 138 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 109, 112-117, 119-121, and 123.
Claims 139, 142-145, 148-150, and 152 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 79, 80, 82-85, 88-90, and 92.
Claims 153, 156-159, 162-164, and 166 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 139, 140, 142-145, 148-150, and 152.
Claims 48, 49, 64, 65, 86, 87, 101, 102, 110, 111, 125, 126, 146, 147, 160, and 161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0392596 to Cocco et al. (“Cocco”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Paulina et al. ("Paulina") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110126 to Sparks ("Sparks"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0108984 to Bennett et al. (“Bennett”):
Regarding claim 48, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
…
provide, … , the user interface prompting for the indication of the current migraine state of the user ([0182]-[0183] of Cocco discusses generating a feedback prompt for the patient based on the therapeutic intervention for feedback regarding the patient’s migraine and how the patient’s experience was with the recommendation, where the feedback is provided via the patient’s mobile computing device per [0181] which would be via the UI and which is obtained in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] and [0212] as noted herein such that the migraine state is a "current" migraine state).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination appears to be silent regarding maintain a timer identifying a time elapsed since a presentation of a prior message via the user interface; where the UI prompting for the migraine state indication is provided responsive to the time elapsing a threshold.
Nevertheless, Bennett teaches ([0130]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to prompt a patient for feedback (e.g., side effects, treatment effectiveness, etc.) regarding a therapy presented to the patient after providing the patient with enough time to implement the therapy regimen (after a time identified by a timer has elapsed some threshold) to advantageously solicit important feedback from the patient that can be used to modify treatments ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a timer identifying a time elapsed since a presentation of a prior message via the user interface whereby the UI prompting for the migraine state indication is provided responsive to the time elapsing a threshold in the system of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as taught by Bennett to advantageously solicit important feedback from the patient that can be used to modify treatments thereby improving patient care. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 49, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is configured to provide, … , the user interface presenting the one or more inquiries to identify the current migraine state of the user ([0090]-[0095] of Cocco discusses how automatic survey/feedback responses can be facilitated from patients to identify migraine symptoms, pain location, etc. while [0074] discloses prompting for the patient survey which would be via presenting the inquiries on the patient’s mobile computing device per [0181] via the UI to receive the migraine state as noted above and which is obtained in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] and [0212] as noted herein such that the migraine state is a "current" migraine state).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as discussed above might be silent regarding the UI prompting for the indication of the migraine state being in accordance with a schedule.
Nevertheless, Bennett teaches ([0150]-[0151]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to periodically prompt a patient for feedback (e.g., side effects, treatment effectiveness, etc.) regarding a therapy presented to the patient, such as once a week (in accordance with a schedule). This arrangement advantageously facilitates any needed updates to therapy instructions thereby improving patient health outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UI prompting for the indication of the migraine state in the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to be in accordance with a schedule as taught by Bennett to advantageously facilitate any needed updates to therapy instructions thereby improving patient health outcomes and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 64, 110, and 125 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Bennett combination as discussed above in relation to claim 48.
Claims 65, 111, and 126 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Bennett combination as discussed above in relation to claim 49.
Regarding claim 86, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 79, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
…
provide, … , the user interface prompting for at least one of the plurality of current emotional states of the user (the smartphone/UI/user device in [0070]-[0083], [0218], and Figure 1 receives real-time/current patient data per [0067], [0070], [0077] regarding feedback 213 including emotional health ([0080], [0182]) and survey data 215 regarding mental health, mood, etc. ([0083]), where the smartphone/UI/user device would necessarily include a prompt, text field, or selectable item ("GUI elements") to capture such current/real-time emotional state of the user; also note how [0074], [0182] disclose prompting the patient for survey/feedback information).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination appears to be silent regarding maintain a timer identifying a time elapsed since a presentation of a prior message via the user interface; where the UI prompting for the migraine state indication is provided responsive to the time elapsing a threshold.
Nevertheless, Bennett teaches ([0130]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to prompt a patient for feedback (e.g., side effects, treatment effectiveness, etc.) regarding a therapy presented to the patient after providing the patient with enough time to implement the therapy regimen (after a time identified by a timer has elapsed some threshold) to advantageously solicit important feedback from the patient that can be used to modify treatments ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a timer identifying a time elapsed since a presentation of a prior message via the user interface whereby the UI prompting for the migraine state indication is provided responsive to the time elapsing a threshold in the system of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as taught by Bennett to advantageously solicit important feedback from the patient that can be used to modify treatments thereby improving patient care. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 87, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 79, further including wherein the computing system is configured to provide, … , the user interface presenting the one or more inquiries to identify at least one of the plurality of current emotional states of the user (the smartphone/UI/user device in [0070]-[0083], [0218], and Figure 1 receives real-time/current patient data per [0067], [0070], [0077] regarding feedback 213 including emotional health ([0080], [0182]) and survey data 215 regarding mental health, mood, etc. ([0083]), where the smartphone/UI/user device would necessarily include a prompt, text field, or selectable item ("GUI elements") to capture such current/real-time emotional state of the user; also note how [0074], [0182] disclose prompting the patient for survey/feedback information).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination as discussed above might be silent regarding the UI prompting for the indication of the migraine state being in accordance with a schedule.
Nevertheless, Bennett teaches ([0150]-[0151]) that it was known in the healthcare informatics art to periodically prompt a patient for feedback (e.g., side effects, treatment effectiveness, etc.) regarding a therapy presented to the patient, such as once a week (in accordance with a schedule). This arrangement advantageously facilitates any needed updates to therapy instructions thereby improving patient health outcomes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the UI prompting for the indication of the migraine state in the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to be in accordance with a schedule as taught by Bennett to advantageously facilitate any needed updates to therapy instructions thereby improving patient health outcomes and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 101, 146, and 160 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Bennett combination as discussed above in relation to claim 86.
Claims 102, 147, and 161 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Bennett combination as discussed above in relation to claim 87.
Claims 56, 72, 80, 81, 95, 96, 118, 133, 140, 141, 154, 155 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0392596 to Cocco et al. (“Cocco”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Paulina et al. ("Paulina") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110126 to Sparks ("Sparks"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,481,749 to Alfishawi et al. (“Alfishawi”):
Regarding claim 56, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify at least one of a plurality of emotional states, wherein the plurality of emotional states comprises a calmness, … , and a mental stamina of the user ([0080] and [0182] of Cocco disclose receiving feedback data including emotional health, mindfulness (“calmness”) and memory/anxiety (“mental stamina”) and storing in feedback dataset 213 and which can be "current" emotional states because they can be received in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] and [0212] as noted herein); and
select, in response to at least one of the plurality of emotional states and the current migraine state, the activity from the plurality of activities ([0145] of Cocco discloses how interventions (activities) can be identified based on dataset 213 (feedback dataset) which includes emotional states and the migraine headache state per [0080] and which are obtained in real-time per [0067], [0070], [0077] and [0212] as noted herein such that the migraine/emotional states are "current" states).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination might be silent regarding the emotional states further including a time availability.
Nevertheless, Alfishawi teaches that it was known in the user mental state monitoring art for a state component 108 to determine a user’s mood/state of haste (i.e., time availability of the user) based on how quickly the user is selecting new media items (11:28-43), determine an amount of time that a user will be in a calm/relaxed state of mind (time availability) (13:44-50) based on the user’s engagement with a content session (14:17-40), and select content/media for provision to the user based on the state attributes (14:41-16:16) (e.g., based on the above determined state of haste and amount of time a user will be in a calm/relaxed state of mind). This arrangement advantageously identifies content that a user will be most receptive to during a content session thereby improving the effectiveness of the content (2:61-3:22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emotional states of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to further include a time availability as taught by Alfishawi to advantageously identify content/activities/messages that a user will be most receptive to during a content session thereby improving the effectiveness of the content/activities/messages. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 72, 80, 95, 118, 133, 140, 154 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Alfishawi combination as discussed above in relation to claim 56.
Regarding claim 81, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Alfishawi combination discloses the system of claim 80, further including wherein the computing system is further configured to:
identify at least one of the plurality of current emotional states as the time availability identifying an amount of available time for the user to perform at least one of the plurality of activities (per the above combination with Alfishawi, one of the current emotional states conveys a time availability identifying an amount of available time for a user to consume content (perform one of the activities/messages of Cocco); again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the emotional states of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to further include a time availability as taught by Alfishawi to advantageously identifies content/activities/messages that a user will be most receptive to during a content session thereby improving the effectiveness of the content/activities/messages. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.); and
select, based on a comparison of the amount of available time with a threshold time, the activity from the plurality of activities, wherein the plurality of activities comprises (i) a first activity associated with the amount of available time exceeding the threshold time and (ii) a second activity associated with the amount of available time not exceeding the threshold time (Alfishawi discloses (14:63-15:31) how a media index includes media assets associated with respective state attributes under which the asset is considered to be well received; for instance, media items that are relatively short in length (based on a threshold length) can be associated with attributes that indicate they are suited for users who are in a state of haste/hurry or in distracted/passive state (i.e., shorter length media assets do not exceed some threshold time) while media items that are longer in duration can be associated with attributes that indicate they are suited for users who are in leisurely, calm, time on their hands, attentive, etc., kind of state (i.e., longer length media assets do exceed some threshold time; furthermore, 15:32-37 discloses how the user’s state attributes (which includes a user’s mood/state of haste (i.e., amount of available time of the user) based on how quickly the user is selecting new media items per 11:28-43 and amount of time that a user will be in a calm/relaxed state of mind (amount of available time) per 13:44-50) can be matched or related to the above state attributes associated with the media assets in the media index; in this regard, based on comparing the amount of available time of the user to the above threshold time separating longer from shorter length media assets, one of the media assets can be selected to present to the user; this arrangement advantageously identifies content that a user will be most receptive to during a content session thereby improving the effectiveness of the content (2:61-3:22); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select, based on a comparison of the amount of available time with a threshold time, the asset/content/activity from the plurality of assets/content/activities that include (i) a first asset/content/activity associated with the amount of available time exceeding the threshold time and (ii) a second asset/content/activity associated with the amount of available time not exceeding the threshold time in the system of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Alfishawi combination as taught by Alfishawi to advantageously identify content that a user will be most receptive to during a content session thereby improving the effectiveness of the content. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Claims 96, 141, and 155 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Alfishawi combination as discussed above in relation to claim 81.
Claims 60, 76, 91, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0392596 to Cocco et al. (“Cocco”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Paulina et al. ("Paulina") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110126 to Sparks ("Sparks"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2025/0042900 to Baggott (“Baggott”):
Regarding claim 60, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 47, further including wherein the migraine comprises a migraine or migraine with aura ([0146] of Cocco).
However, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination appears to be silent regarding the migraine including at least one of a complicated migraine, a common migraine, a silent migraine, a hemiplegic migraine, or a retinal migraine.
Nevertheless, Baggott teaches ([0058]) that it was known in the migraine headache treatment art that various types of migraine headaches exist such as silent migraine, hemiplegic migraine, retinal migraine, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the migraine being treated in the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to be at least one of a silent migraine, hemiplegic migraine, or a retinal migraine as taught by Baggott as such migraine types are known types of treatable migraines and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 76, 91, and 106 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Baggott combination as discussed above in relation to claim 60.
Claims 122, 137, 151, and 165 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0392596 to Cocco et al. (“Cocco”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Paulina et al. ("Paulina") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0110126 to Sparks ("Sparks"), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0096318 to Harper et al. (“Harper”):
Regarding claim 122, the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination discloses the system of claim 109, but appears to be silent regarding wherein the headache comprises an icepick headache or a cluster headache.
Nevertheless, Harper teaches ([0105]) that it was known in the pain management art that cluster and stabbing type (icepick) headaches are known types of headaches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the headache of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks combination to be an icepick or cluster headache as taught by Harper because such headaches are known types of headaches that can afflict patients thereby allowing the system of the Cocco/Paulina combination to address such headache types. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claims 137, 151, and 165 are rejected in view of the Cocco/Paulina/Sparks/Harper combination as discussed above in relation to claim 122.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached on 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686