DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/09/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 1-3, 5, 7-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims 4, 6, and 18 do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 09/09/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 10, 12, and 20 have been amended; claims 2-9, 11, and 13-19 remain unchanged; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 03/31/2022
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection:
Examiner withdraws the previous 112(b) claim rejection.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the specific sensor in the amended claims, stating that there is a specific practical application that produces a real-world physical effect. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The usage of force sensor does not inherently direct claims towards being a practical application. The force sensor is an additional element and the way it is being used in the claims is in a data gathering manner (pre-solution activity).
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the references of the previous rejections do not teach of using sensors under the foot to collect force data. This however is addressed using the Najafi et al. reference.
Applicant further argues with respect to Srivastava and states that there is no computation of a risk of disengagement and nor is there an increase in a user score upon completion of a response. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. There is a recommendation for changing engagement in activities based on the predicted pain of the patient. A recommendation to increasing pain-free activities based on a high predicted pain is a prediction involving the risk of disengagement for the user in these activities due to pain. The recommendation is a solution to this computed risk of disengagement. Additionally, there is calculation of an activity level and calculating this score from an initial no score is an increasing of the score after completion of the activity/challenge. For example, there are activity metrics such as the ones in paragraph [0142] which involve total time spent performing activities. The scores for the metrics related to totals are increased.
Lastly, Applicant argues with respect to the combination of Squires and Srivastava stating that the combination would yield a challenge/recommendation selected based on activity level or predicted pain and rewarded upon completion. As stated above, the computation of a risk of disengagement can be interpreted in a broader manner than what is being argued. Examiner suggests amending this to overcome the current reference citations for this limitation.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-11 are drawn to a method, claims 12-19 are drawn to a system, and claim 20 is drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method comprising:
1) receiving, by a) a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device;
2) computing, by a) the processor, a first use metric associated with the user based on the first use data, wherein the first use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor;
3) comparing the first use metric to a first threshold metric;
4) based on the comparing, updating a user score by a first score amount;
5) computing a second score amount and a second threshold metric;
6) providing, by a) the processor, a first indication of the user score, the second threshold metric, and the second score amount on b) a display device;
7) responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, generating an alert and causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration indicating that the first threshold metric has been reached; and
8) computing a risk of disengagement for the user,
9) generating an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement, and
10) increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 2) computing a first use metric associated with the user based on the first use data, wherein the first use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor, 3) comparing the first use metric to a first threshold metric, 4) based on the comparing, updating a user score by a first score amount, 5) computing a second score amount and a second threshold metric, 6) providing a first indication of the user score, the second threshold metric, and the second score amount, 7) responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, generating an alert indicating that the first threshold metric has been reached, 8) computing a risk of disengagement for the user, 9) generating an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement, and 10) increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to analyze patient metrics and alerting the patient if a threshold is met.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 2) computing a first use metric associated with the user based on the first use data, wherein the first use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor, 3) comparing the first use metric to a first threshold metric, 4) based on the comparing, updating a user score by a first score amount, 5) computing a second score amount and a second threshold metric, 8) computing a risk of disengagement for the user, and 10) increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea for further analysis. Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 20 recites a wearable monitoring system comprising:
c) at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device; and
d) a computing device comprising a) a processor, e) a memory, and b) a display device, wherein the processor is configured to:
11) receive sensor data and use data, the sensor data and the use data associated with use of the at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the sensor data and the use data comprise data generated from the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device;
12) generate monitoring data, the monitoring data generated from monitoring the sensor data and the use data of the at least one wearable device of the user;
13) compare a numeric value of a day of a specified period to a numeric value of a predefined day of the specified period;
14) compute a use metric based on the sensor data or the use data or a monitoring metric based on the monitoring data, wherein the use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor, if the numeric value of the day of the specified period is greater than or equal to the numeric value of the predefined day of the specified period;
15) compare the use metric or the monitoring metric to a threshold metric;
16) determine whether the use metric or the monitoring metric satisfies a threshold requirement of the threshold metric;
17) generate an alert on the display device if the use metric or the monitoring metric does not satisfy the threshold requirement;
18) responsive to the use metric reaching the threshold metric, cause a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration, indicating that the threshold metric has been reached; and
19) compute a risk of disengagement for the user,
20) generate an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement, and
21) increase a user score associated with the user upon completion of the additional challenge by the user.
Claim 20 recites, in part, performing the steps of 12) generate monitoring data, the monitoring data generated from monitoring the sensor data and the use data of the at least one wearable device of the user, 13) compare a numeric value of a day of a specified period to a numeric value of a predefined day of the specified period, 14) compute a use metric based on the sensor data or the use data or a monitoring metric based on the monitoring data, wherein the use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor, if the numeric value of the day of the specified period is greater than or equal to the numeric value of the predefined day of the specified period, 15) compare the use metric or the monitoring metric to a threshold metric, 16) determine whether the use metric or the monitoring metric satisfies a threshold requirement of the threshold metric, 17) generate an alert if the use metric or the monitoring metric does not satisfy the threshold requirement, 18) responsive to the use metric reaching the threshold metric, cause to emit at least one of an audible alert, indicating that the threshold metric has been reached, 19) compute a risk of disengagement for the user, 20) generate an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement, and 21) increase a user score associated with the user upon completion of the additional challenge by the user. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to analyze patient metrics and alerting the patient if a threshold is met.
Claim 20 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 14) compute a use metric based on the sensor data or the use data or a monitoring metric based on the monitoring data, wherein the use metric is determined from force data generated by the force sensor, if the numeric value of the day of the specified period is greater than or equal to the numeric value of the predefined day of the specified period, 15) compare the use metric or the monitoring metric to a threshold metric, 16) determine whether the use metric or the monitoring metric satisfies a threshold requirement of the threshold metric, 19) compute a risk of disengagement for the user, and 21) increase a user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea for further analysis.
Depending claims 2-11 and 13-19 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2 and 13 add the additional steps of “receiving, by the processor, second use data generated by use of the at least one wearable device following receipt of the first indication”, “computing, by the processor, a second use metric associated with the user based on the second data”, “comparing the second use metric to the second threshold metric”, and “when the second use metric satisfies the second threshold metric, updating the user score by the second score amount”; claims 3 and 14 add the additional step of “modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric in response to computing the second use metric”; claim 4 adds the additional step of “modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric based on multiple use metrics associated with multiple users”; claim 5 adds the additional step of “modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric comprises using a machine learning model”; claim 6 adds the additional step of “providing to the user, by the processor, a second indication on the display device, wherein the second indication is based on the second use metric and the second threshold metric as modified”; and claim 10 adds the additional steps of “receiving, by the processor, a healthcare assessment for the user for a time period associated with use of the at least one wearable device” and “modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric in response to the input and based on at least one of the first use metric and the second use metric”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 7-9, 11, and 15-19 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-11 and 13-19 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 12 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using c) at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors and d) a computing device comprising a) a processor, e) a memory, and b) a display device to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional elements steps of 1) “receiving, by a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device”, 7) “responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration”, 11) “receive sensor data and use data, the sensor data and the use data associated with use of the at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the sensor data and the use data comprise data generated from the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device”, and 18) “cause a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration.”
The d) computing device comprising a) a processor, e) a memory, and b) a display device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0062] where there is a general purpose programmable device, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the c) at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors in these steps and the additional element steps of 1) “receiving, by a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device” and 11) “receive sensor data and use data, the sensor data and the use data associated with use of the at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the sensor data and the use data comprise data generated from the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device” add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the additional element steps of 7) “responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration” and 18) “cause a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using c) at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors and d) a computing device comprising a) a processor, e) a memory, and b) a display device to perform the claimed steps and the additional element steps of 1) “receiving, by a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device”, 7) “responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration”, 11) “receive sensor data and use data, the sensor data and the use data associated with use of the at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the sensor data and the use data comprise data generated from the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device”, and 18) “cause a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration” amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention provides indications and alerts utilizing d) a computing device comprising a) a processor, e) a memory, and b) a display device, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the c) at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors in these steps and the additional element steps of 1) “receiving, by a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device” and 11) “receive sensor data and use data, the sensor data and the use data associated with use of the at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the sensor data and the use data comprise data generated from the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device” add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives sensor data, and transmits the data to a device over a network, for example the Internet.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 7) “responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration” and 18) “cause a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration.”, e.g. see paragraph [0049] of U.S. 2013/0097557 to Madau et al. which causing an emission of an alert via audio or haptic feedback which is well-known.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0067494 to Squires in view of U.S. 2018/0249945 to Najafi et al. further in view of U.S. 2014/0129008 to Utter, II and further in view of U.S. 2022/0401739 to Srivastava et al.
As per claim 1, Squires teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
--receiving, by a processor, first use data associated with use of at least one wearable device by a user, wherein the first use data comprises data generated from one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device; (see: paragraphs [0041] – [0042] where at step 504 there is receiving of wearable motion data by a processor. This received motion data is associated with use of the wearable by a user)
--computing, by the processor, a first use metric associated with the user based on the first use data, (see: paragraph [0021] where stride, jogging, etc. (use metric) is being computed/determined from motion information (first use data)) wherein the first use metric is determined from the data generated by the sensor; (see: paragraph [0021] where stride, jogging, etc. (use metric) is being computed/determined from motion information. Also see: paragraph [0028] where there are sensors here used to determine motion metrics)
--comparing the first use metric to a first threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0045] where a use metric (activity such as stride, jogging, etc. from paragraph [0021]) is being compared with a threshold metric (a target))
--based on the comparing, updating a user score by a first score amount; (see: paragraph [0045] where a user is provided a reward (a first score amount for a total score) for meeting a target. Based upon the comparison between a target and the activity determination, a total point score for the user is being updated as points are a reward as explained in paragraph [0015]) and
--computing a second score amount and a second threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0038] where there are rewards (score amounts) which accompany target activity levels (threshold metrics). A second reward (score amount) is being computed here based on the weighting of an activity (second threshold metric) for users with a lower activity level).
Squires may not further, specifically teach:
1) --wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device;
2) --force data generated by the force sensor;
3) --providing, by the processor, a first indication of the user score, the second threshold metric, and the second score amount on a display device;
4) --responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, generating an alert and causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration indicating that the first threshold metric has been reached; and
5) --computing a risk of disengagement for the user, generating an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement and increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user.
Najafi et al. teaches:
1) --wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device; (see: 140 of FIGS. 1 and 2 where there is a wearable device. Also see: paragraph [0090] where there is a smart textile with force sensors) and
2) --force data generated by the force sensor (see: paragraph [0090] where there are force sensors generating force data using the smart textile).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 1) wherein the one or more sensors comprise a force sensor positioned underfoot to measure force applied by a user’s foot to the at least one wearable device and 2) force data generated by the force sensor as taught by Najafi et al. for the sensors and sensor data as disclosed by Squires since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Squires already teaches of using a wearable device and the sensor data generated by that sensor therefore it would be obvious to switch the sensor and data for other wearable sensors and data while achieving predictable results of using a wearable sensor to generate sensor data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Utter, II teaches:
3) --providing, by the processor, a first indication of the user score, (see: paragraph [0076] where there is display of a current daily score) the second threshold metric, (see: paragraph [0076] where there is display of a daily goal) and the second score amount on a display device; (see: paragraph [0073] where there is a display of the points for certain activities) and
4) --responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, generating an alert and causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration indicating that the first threshold metric has been reached (see: paragraphs [0045] and [0106] where there is a vibrational alert being generated responsive to a comparison between the total point value/first use metric and threshold goal value/first threshold metric).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 3) provide, by the processor, a first indication of the user score, the second threshold metric, and the second score amount on a display device and 4) responsive to the first use metric reaching the first threshold metric, generating an alert and causing a user interface module to emit at least one of an audible alert and a haptic vibration indicating that the first threshold metric has been reached as taught by Utter, II in the method as taught by Squires and Najafi et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving a user’s health (see: paragraph [0037] of Utter, II).
Srivastava et al. teaches:
5) --computing a risk of disengagement for the user, (see: paragraph [0141] where there is a determination of an increased engagement, thus there is a computed risk of disengagement for the user) generating an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement (see: paragraph [0141] where there is generation of an additional challenge/pain-free activity based on the engagement) and increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user (see: paragraphs [0015], [0142], and [0176] where there is a calculated activity score).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 5) compute a risk of disengagement for the user, generating an additional challenge based on the risk of disengagement and increasing the user score upon completion of the additional challenge by the user as taught by Srivastava et al. in the method as taught by Squires, Najafi et al., and Bastide et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving patient outcomes (see: paragraph [0102] of Srivastava et al.).
As per claim 2, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Squires further teaches:
--receiving, by the processor, second use data generated by use of the at least one wearable device following receipt of the first indication; (see: paragraphs [0041] – [0042] where at step 504 there is receiving of wearable motion data by a processor. This is done in real-time thus it can be considered as a second use data as well after a goal is met)
--computing, by the processor, a second use metric associated with the user based on the second data; (see: paragraph [0021] where stride, jogging, etc. (use metric) is being computed/determined from motion information (second use data)
--comparing the second use metric to the second threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0045] where a use metric (activity such as stride, jogging, etc. from paragraph [0021]) is being compared with a threshold metric (another/second target)) and
--when the second use metric satisfies the second threshold metric, updating the user score by the second score amount (see: paragraph [0045] where a user is provided a reward (a second score amount for a total score) for meeting a target. Based upon the comparison between a target and the activity determination, a total point score for the user is being updated as points are a reward as explained in paragraph [0015]).
As per claim 3, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Squires further teaches modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric in response to computing the second use metric (see: paragraph [0046] where a new activity target (threshold metric) is being determined based on current activity level (second use metric)).
As per claim 5, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 3, see discussion of claim 3. Squires further teaches modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric comprises using a machine learning model (see: paragraph [0059] where activity levels (threshold metrics) are being determined using a machine learning algorithm).
As per claim 7, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Najafi et al. further teaches wherein the first threshold metric and the second threshold metric are calibrated to reduce risk factors associated with development of a diabetic foot ulcer (see: paragraph [0094] where metrics are being provided to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the first threshold metric and the second threshold metric are calibrated to reduce risk factors associated with development of a diabetic foot ulcer as taught by Najafi et al. in the method as taught by Squires, Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing feedback to the user for improving adherence to treatment (see: paragraph [0029] of Najafi et al.).
As per claim 8, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Squires further teaches wherein the second threshold metric includes one of a health metric and a user-specific criterion (see: paragraph [0038] where there are rewards which accompany target activity levels (threshold metrics). The target activity levels here are a user-specific criterion).
As per claim 9, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Srivastava et al. further teaches wherein the computing the second threshold metric is based on the risk of disengagement (see: paragraphs [0136] and [0156] where there is such a computation).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Squires further teaches:
--receiving, by the processor, a healthcare assessment for the user for a time period associated with use of the at least one wearable device; (see: paragraph [0021] where there is reception of a healthcare assessment for a period of time in the form of received measures of motion) and
--modifying, by the processor, the second threshold metric in response to the healthcare assessment and based on at least one of the first use metric and the second use metric (see: paragraph [0046] where a new activity target (threshold metric) is being determined based on current activity level (second use metric)).
As per claim 11, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Squires further teaches wherein the first use data indicates one or more of a duration of wear of the at least one wearable device by the user, a number of consecutive or non-consecutive days of use of the at least one wearable device by the user, a duration of wear of the at least one wearable device by the user within a predetermined time interval, a response of the user to one or more alerts provided by the at least one wearable device, a response of the user to one or more indications provided by the processor, an activity level of the user, an interaction level of the user with a digital platform associated with the at least one wearable device, a use level of a wireless charger for the at least one wearable device by the user, and a care level of the at least one wearable device by the user (see: paragraph [0058] where the use data indicates an activity level of a user).
As per claim 12, claim 12 is similar to claim 1 and is also rejected in a similar manner to claim 1. Squires further teaches a wearable monitoring system comprising:
--at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors; (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a wearable) and
--a computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a display device (see: 104 of FIG. 1 and paragraph [0022] where there is a control component which is maintained remotely and is on one or more servers. The above components are present).
As per claim 13, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Squires further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
--receive second use data generated by use of the at least one wearable device following receipt of the first indication; (see: paragraphs [0041] – [0042] where at step 504 there is receiving of wearable motion data by a processor. This is done in real-time thus it can be considered as a second use data as well after a goal is met)
--compute a second use metric associated with the user based on the second data; (see: paragraph [0021] where stride, jogging, etc. (use metric) is being computed/determined from motion information (second use data)
--compare the second use metric to the second threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0045] where a use metric (activity such as stride, jogging, etc. from paragraph [0021]) is being compared with a threshold metric (another/second target)) and
--when the second use metric satisfies the second threshold metric, update the user score by the second score amount (see: paragraph [0045] where a user is provided a reward (a second score amount for a total score) for meeting a target. Based upon the comparison between a target and the activity determination, a total point score for the user is being updated as points are a reward as explained in paragraph [0015]).
As per claim 14, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 13, see discussion of claim 13. Squires further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to modify the second threshold metric in response to computing the second use metric (see: paragraph [0046] where a new activity target (threshold metric) is being determined based on current activity level (second use metric)).
As per claim 15, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Najafi et al. further teaches wherein the at least one wearable device is a sensorized insole (see: paragraph [009] where there is a smart textile insole).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute wherein the at least one wearable device is a sensorized insole as taught by Najafi et al. for the wearable device as disclosed by Squires, Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, the combination of Squires, Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. teaches of using wearables thus one can replace that wearable and use another wearable and achieve predictable results of using a wearable to collect data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 16, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Najafi et al. further teaches wherein the first threshold metric and the second threshold metric are calibrated to reduce risk factors associated with development of a diabetic foot ulcer (see: paragraph [0094] where metrics are being provided to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the first threshold metric and the second threshold metric are calibrated to reduce risk factors associated with development of a diabetic foot ulcer as taught by Najafi et al. in the system as taught by Squires, Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing feedback to the user for improving adherence to treatment (see: paragraph [0029] of Najafi et al.).
As per claim 17, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Srivastava et al. further teaches wherein the computing the second threshold metric is based on the risk of disengagement (see: paragraphs [0136] and [0156] where there is such a computation).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 12, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Squires, Najafi et al., Utter, II, and Srivastava et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. Squires further teaches wherein the one or more sensors of the at least one wearable device includes at least one of a force sensor and a temperature sensor (see: paragraph [0028] where there is an accelerometer which is a type of force sensor).
As per claim 20, claim 12 is similar to claim 1 and is also rejected in a similar manner to claim 1. Squires further teaches a wearable monitoring system comprising:
--at least one wearable device comprising one or more sensors; (see: paragraph [0029] where there is a wearable) and
--a computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a display device, (see: 104 of FIG. 1 and paragraph [0022] where there is a control component which is maintained remotely and is on one or more servers. The above components are present) wherein the processor is configured to:
--compare a numeric value of a day of a specified period to a numeric value of a predefined day of the specified period; (see: paragraph [0058] where there is a comparison with known behavior data)
--compute a use metric based on the sensor data or the use data or a monitoring metric based on the monitoring data, (see: paragraph [0021] where stride, jogging, etc. (use metric) is being computed/determined from motion information (sensor data)) if the numeric value of the day of the specified period is greater than or equal to the numeric value of the predefined day of the specified period; (see: paragraphs [0029] and [0030] where there is factoring in of time or time elapsed for a given period of time. Also see: paragraph [0058] where there is a comparison with known behavior data)
--compare the use metric or the monitoring metric to a threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0032] where there is a determination of inactivity based on a comparison between a threshold (threshold requirement of a threshold metric) and a metric (the activity))
--determine whether the use metric or the monitoring metric satisfies a threshold requirement of the threshold metric; (see: paragraph [0032] where there is a determination of inactivity using a threshold (threshold requirement of a threshold metric) and then an alert is being generated) and
--generate an alert on the display device if the use metric or the monitoring metric does not satisfy the threshold requirement (see: paragraph [0032] where there is generation of an alert using a use metric when a threshold requirement is not satisfied).
Utter, II further teaches:
--generate monitoring data, the monitoring data generated from monitoring the sensor data and the use data of the at least one wearable device of the user (see: paragraph [0004] where there is generating of such data).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
No Art Rejections
Claims 4, 6, and 18 do not have art rejections in view of the combinations of references used to reject these claims being unreasonable combinations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights