DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both user device and location (see para. [0140]). The location should be designated by reference character “510”. reference character “155” has been used to designate both the feedback provider, the response handler, and the performance evaluator (see para. [0097, 0125]). The response handler should be designated by reference character “150” and the performance evaluator should recite “feedback provider”. reference character “ 170 ” has been used to designate both the visual stimulus, the visual probe, and the user profile (see para. [ 0111, 0127 ]). The visual probe should be designated by reference character “175” and the user profile should be designated by reference character “165” . reference character “200” has been used to designate both the process and the session (see para. [ 0113 ]). The session should be designated by reference character “220 ” . reference character “220” has been used to designate both the session and the interaction (see para. [0109]). The interaction should be designated by reference character “315”. reference character “315” has been used to designate both the interaction and the feedback (see para. [0134, 0145, 0156]). The feedback should be designated by reference character “310”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “205” (see para. [0097, 0100]) . The “interaction 205” should recite “interaction 315” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “900” in fig. 9 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “obtaining, by a computing system, for each session …” in claim 1 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The computing system is defined in para. [0047-0048, 0138] as any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are all within at least one of the four categories. Independent Claim 1 recites: obtaining, by a computing system, a first metric associated with the user prior to a plurality of sessions; repeating, by the computing system, for each session of the plurality of sessions: ( i ) presentation, during a first portion of the session via a display, a respective set of visual stimuli comprising (a) a first visual stimulus associated with the chronic pain at a first position and (b) a second visual stimulus that is neutral with respect to the chronic pain at a second position, relative to a fixation point presented on the display; (ii) removal, from presentation on the display, the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus subsequent to the elapsing of the first portion; and (iii) presentation, during a second portion of the session via the display, a visual probe corresponding to one of the first position or the second position relative to the fixation point, to direct the user to interact with the visual probe; obtaining, by the computing system, a second metric associated with the user subsequent to at least one of the plurality of sessions, and wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin. The above claim limitations ( obtaining … a first metric; obtaining … a second metric; wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ) constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i . “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic , LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed steps of “ wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ” recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The step of “ wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ” in independent Claim 1 is a mathematical relationship between a first metric and a second metric . Referring to para. [0160-0162, 0251-0258, 0281-0285] of the specification , t he alleviation of the chronic pain may occur when the second metric is increased from the first metric/ baseline value by the first predetermined margin . Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-15 are directed to more abstract ideas and further limitations on abstract ideas is already recited. This judicial exception (abstract idea) in 1-15 is not integrated into a practical application because: The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing system . For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for “ wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ” merely invoke a computing system as a tool . The data-gathering step ( obtaining ) and the data-output step do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computing system that is used as a tool for “ wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ” . The claims do not apply the abstract idea to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine an alleviation in chronic pain. The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computing system for ““ wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin ” . The claims do not apply the obtained calculation to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step. The additional elements are identified as follows: computing system, display, visual stimuli, visual probe . Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Applicant’s specification (e.g., para. [ 0047-0048, 0138] ) which discloses that the computing system comprise s generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant’s Background in the specification; and The Non-Patent Literature of record: Carleton, et al., (2011). Attention Modification in Persons with Fibromyalgia: A Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2011.616218 ; Sharpe et al., Attentional Biases in Chronic Pain Associated With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Hypervigilance or Difficulties Disengaging?, The Journal of Pain, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 329-335, ISSN 1526-5900, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.10.005 ; Dubé et al., Measurement properties of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Pain Rep. 2021 Dec 21;6(4):e972. doi : 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000972. PMID: 34963996; PMCID: PMC8701870 ; Monticone et al., Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in people with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022 Feb;58(1):68-75. doi : 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06729-0 ; Khutok et al., Responsiveness of the PROMIS-29 Scales in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain. SPINE 46(2):p 107-113, January 15, 2021 ; Sharpe et al., Is there a potential role for attention bias modification in pain patients? Results of 2 randomised , controlled trials, PAIN, Volume 153, Issue 3, 2012, pages 722-731, ISSN 0304-3959, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.014 . Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)( lI ) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A photoacoustic microscopy system or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer. When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e., the generic photoacoustic microscopy system functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carleton (Carleton, et al., (2011). Attention Modification in Persons with Fibromyalgia: A Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2011.616218). Regarding claim 1, Carleton discloses a method of alleviating chronic pain associated with a condition in a user in need thereof (“ treating chronic musculoskeletal pain ”, Abstract) , comprising: obtaining, by a computing system, a first metric associated with the user (pages 281 & 284-285, Method, Participants, “initial Web-based questionnaire battery” & Data Analytic Plan, initial measure of pain (i.e., initial VAS score ), Table 2. Descriptive statistics ) prior to a plurality of sessions (page 281, Method, Participants”, “subsequent experimental sessions”) ; repeating, by the computing system (page 281, Method, Participants, “ computer-based treatment ” ) , for each session of the plurality of sessions (page 281, Method, Participants, “ sessions … twice per week for 4 weeks” ) : ( i ) presentation, during a first portion of the session (page 283, Procedure, “500 ms ”) via a display (page 283, Procedure, “screen”) , a respective set of visual stimuli (page 293, Table 1. Words lists) comprising (a) a first visual stimulus associated with the chronic pain at a first position (page 281, Table 1, Threat words) and (b) a second visual stimulus that is neutral with respect to the chronic pain at a second position (page 281, Table 1, neutral words) , relative to a fixation point (page 283, Procedure, “ centre of the screen”) presented on the display (page 283, Procedure, “words presented in the center of the screen approximately 1.5 cm away from one another”) ; (ii) removal, from presentation on the display, the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus subsequent to the elapsing of the first portion (page 283, Procedure, “ Words were presented in the centre of the screen, …. for 500 ms … following the presentation … a probe … appeared” (Examiner note: the words are removed from the screen after 500 ms ) ) ; and (iii) presentation, during a second portion of the session via the display, a visual probe corresponding to one of the first position or the second position relative to the fixation point, to direct the user to interact with the visual probe ( pages 283-284, Procedure, “F ollowing the presentation of each word, a probe, which was either the letter E or the letter F, appeared in the screen position following the presentation of one of the two words … detect the probe” ) ; obtaining, by the computing system, a second metric associated with the user subsequent to at least one of the plurality of sessions (page 281 & 284-285, “ All participants completed the initial Web-based questionnaire battery again following the final session ” & Data Analytic Plan, “VAS score … final measure of pain ”, Table 2. Descriptive Statistics ) , and wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user ( Abstract, “ clinically significant reductions in pain ” ) , when the second metric is ( i ) decreased from the first metric by a first predetermined margin ( page 284, Data Analytic Plan, “ c linically signifi cant change … decreases in pain of approximately 33% or … 2-points decreases on the 10-point scale … both indicate clinically significant changes in VAS pain scores ” & page 285, Results, “AMP condition … statistically significant reduction in scores on the VAS from pre- to post-treatment ”, Table 2. Descriptive statistics ) or (ii) increased from the first metric by a second predetermined margin . Regarding claim 2 , Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1, wherein the condition includes at least one of: rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, or diabetic neuropathy (Abstract , “fibromyalgia” ) . Regarding claim 3, Carleton discloses the method of claim 1. Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein the chronic pain associated with the condition causes the user to have attention bias towards stimuli associated with the chronic pain (page s 279-280, 283, Introduction, “ Researchers have identified attentional biases for sensory pain-related words, for example, throbbing, sharp, and piercing ”; Procedure, “ Threat words were from previous literature assessing pain-related adjectives ” , Table 1) . Regarding claim 13 , Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sessions are provided over a period of time ranging between 1 to 90 days, in accordance with a session schedule (page 281, Method, Participants, “ sessions …scheduled … twice per week for 4 weeks” ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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. Claim s 4 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view Sharpe 2009 (Sharpe et al., Attentional Biases in Chronic Pain Associated With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Hypervigilance or Difficulties Disengaging? , The Journal of Pain, Volume 10, Issue 3 , 2009, Pages 329-335, ISSN 1526-5900, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.10.005 ) . Regarding claim 4, Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1 . Carleton further discloses that participants were eligible for the study if they had no change in other psychosocial treatments or medication during the 12 weeks prior to study entry (page 280, Method, Participants) Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein the user is on a medication to address the chronic pain associated with the condition, at least in partial concurrence with at least one of the plurality of sessions. However, Sharpe 2009 directed to determin ing (a) whether RA patients demonstrate an attentional bias to sensory pain words; and (b) whether this bias is a result of hypervigilance or failure to disengage from the stimuli discloses wherein the user is on a medication to address the chronic pain associated with the condition, at least in partial concurrence with at least one of the plurality of sessions (page 330-331, Methods, Participants, “ vast majority of the sample were taking medication for their RA (94%), with almost half (48%) regularly taking corticosteroids, 61% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, 33% taking immunosuppressants, and 54% taking disease-modifying m edications & Procedure, “dot-probe task … completing the task”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that the user is on a medication to address the chronic pain associated with the condition, at least in partial concurrence with at least one of the plurality of sessions , in view of the teachings of Sharpe 2009 , as such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely selecting participants for the study that were taking medications for their condition/rheumatoid arthritis and had no change in other psychosocial treatments or medication during the 12 weeks prior to study entry . Regarding claim 5 , Carleton, as modified by Sharpe 2009 hereinabove, discloses wherein the medication comprises at least one of acetaminophen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an antidepressant, or an anticonvulsant (Sharpe 2009 , page 330-331, Methods, Participants, “ vast majority of the sample were taking medication for their RA (94% ) … 61% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories ” ) . Claim s 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view of Dubé ( Dubé et al . , Measurement properties of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Pain Rep. 2021 Dec 21;6(4):e972. doi : 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000972. PMID: 34963996; PMCID: PMC8701870. ) Regarding claim 6 , Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1 . Carleton does not disclose expressly wherein the chronic pain is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin, wherein the first metric and the second metric are pain self-efficacy values. However, Dubé directed to assessing pain self-efficacy in chronic MSK disorders discloses wherein the chronic pain is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin (page 8, 3.10 Responsiveness, “population in chronic pain participated in cognitive intervention … those who improved (increase of 2 or more on the PSEQ-2 score) ”) , wherein the first metric and the second metric are pain self- efficacy values (Abstract, “ Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is one of the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures for pain self - efficacy ” ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that the chronic pain is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin, wherein the first metric and the second metric are pain self-efficacy values , in view of the teachings of Dubé , as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the measures/visual analogue scale of Carleton for the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) /PSEQ-2 of Dubé to measure responsiveness and determine improvements in the patient condition. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view of Dubé , as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sharpe 2009. Regarding claim 7, Carleton, as modified by Dubé hereinabove, discloses the method of claim 6, w herein the condition which chronic pain is alleviated (Carleton, page 284, Data Analytic Plan, “ c linically signifi cant change … decreases in pain of approximately 33% or … 2-points decreases on the 10-point scale ” & Dubé , page 8, 3.10 Responsiveness, “population in chronic pain participated in cognitive intervention … those who improved (increase of 2 or more on the PSEQ-2 score) ” ) based on the pain self-efficacy values ( Dubé , Abstract, “ Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) ” ) ) . Carleton, as modified by Dubé hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the condition in which chronic pain is alleviated based on the pain self-efficacy values includes rheumatoid arthritis . However, Sharpe 2009 directed to determin ing (a) whether RA patients demonstrate an attentional bias to sensory pain words; and (b) whether this bias is a result of hypervigilance or failure to disengage from the stimuli discloses wherein the condition includes rheumatoid arthritis (Abstract, “chronic pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis (RA)”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton , as modified by Dubé hereinabove, such that the condition in which chronic pain is alleviated based on the pain self-efficacy values includes rheumatoid arthritis , in view of the teachings of Sharpe 2009 , in order to assess the responsiveness to treatments for pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis . Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view Monticone ( Monticone et al., Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in people with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022 Feb;58(1):68-75. doi : 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06729-0). Regarding claim 8, Carleton further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the chronic pain is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is decreased from the first metric by the first predetermined margin ( page 284, Data Analytic Plan, “ c linically signifi cant change … decreases in pain of approximately 33% or … 2-points decreases on the 10-point scale … both indicate clinically significant changes in VAS pain scores ” & page 285, Results, “AMP condition … statistically significant reduction in scores on the VAS from pre- to post-treatment ”, Table 2. Descriptive statistics ) . Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein the first metric and the second metric are pain catastrophizing scale values. However, Monticone directed to determining the responsiveness and minimal important change of the pain catastrophizing scale in people with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation wherein the first metric and the second metric are pain catastrophizing scale values (page 71, Results, “ PCS-I total scale and three subscales (helplessness, rumination, and magnification ) … scores”, Table II) (Examiner note: Table II shows a decrease in rumination subscale total from pretreatment mean 7.95 to post-treatment mean 5.05) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that the first metric and the second metric are pain catastrophizing scale values , in view of the teachings of Monticone , as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the measures/visual analogue scale of Carleton for the PCS-I scores ( PCS-I total scale and three subscales ) of Monticone to assess improvement or alleviation of the condition/symptoms. Regarding claim 9, Carleton, as modified by Monticone hereinabove, discloses t he method of claim 8, wherein the pain catastrophizing scale values for the first metric and the second metric comprises at least one of a value for helplessness, a value for rumination, or a composite value ( Monticone , page 71, Table II, PCS-T, Helplessness subscale, Rumination subscale) . Regarding claim 10 , Carleton, as modified by Monticone hereinabove, discloses t he method of claim 8, wherein the condition in which chronic pain is alleviated based on the pain catastrophizing scale values for rumination includes fibromyalgia (Abstract , “fibromyalgia” ) . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view of Sharpe 2009, and further in view of Malloy ( US 20180147234 A1 ). Regarding claim 11 , Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1, wherein chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is decreased from the first metric by the first predetermined margin ( page 284, Data Analytic Plan, “ c linically signifi cant change … decreases in pain of approximately 33% or … 2-points decreases on the 10-point scale … both indicate clinically significant changes in VAS pain scores ” & page 285, Results, “AMP condition … statistically significant reduction in scores on the VAS from pre- to post-treatment ”, Table 2. Descriptive statistics ) . Carleton does not expressly disclose the chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis . However, Sharpe 2009 directed to determin ing (a) whether RA patients demonstrate an attentional bias to sensory pain words; and (b) whether this bias is a result of hypervigilance or failure to disengage from the stimuli discloses wherein the condition includes rheumatoid arthritis (Abstract, “chronic pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis (RA)”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis is alleviated in the user , in view of the teachings of Sharpe 2009 , in order to treat pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Carleton , as modified by Sharpe 2009 hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the first metric and the second metric are brief pain inventory interference (BPI-I) values. However, Malloy directed to methods and compositions for the treatment of Fibromyalgia (FM) discloses wherein chronic pain associated with the condition is alleviated in the user (“mean improvement”; “improve or alleviate”, para. [0022, 0206]) , when the second metric (Table 10, Pain Interference Scale, Day 42, Mean 3.9) is decreased (“ change from baseline”, para. [0457]) from the first metric (Table 10, Pain Interference Scale, Baseline, Mean 8.1) (Examiner note: the mean of 3.9 is less than 8.1, see also para. [0173 , 0457 ], “change”) , wherein the first metric (Table 10, Pain Interference Scale , Baseline, Mean 8.1 ) and the second metric (Table 10, Pain Interference Scale, Day 42, Mean 3.9) are brief pain inventory interference (BPI-I) values ( Table 10, Pain Interference Scale, “ Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity and Pain Interference scores ”, para. [0022, 0416-0417] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton , as modified by Sharpe 2009 hereinabove, such that the first metric and the second metric are brief pain inventory interference (BPI-I) values, in view of the teachings of Malloy, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the measures/visual analogue scale of Carleton for the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity and Pain Interference scores of Malloy to measure the domains of pain severity and pain interference to determine the alleviation or improvement of symptoms . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view of Sharpe 2009, and further in view of Khutok ( Khutok et al . , Responsiveness of the PROMIS-29 Scales in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain. SPINE 46(2):p 107-113, January 15, 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003724 ) . Regarding claim 12, Carleton discloses the method of claim 1. Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin, wherein the first metric and the second metric are brief patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) values for social participation. Carleton does not expressly disclose the chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis . However, Sharpe 2009 directed to determin ing (a) whether RA patients demonstrate an attentional bias to sensory pain words; and (b) whether this bias is a result of hypervigilance or failure to disengage from the stimuli discloses wherein the condition includes rheumatoid arthritis (Abstract, “chronic pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis (RA)”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis is alleviated in the user , in view of the teachings of Sharpe 2009, in order to treat pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Carleton, as modified by Sharpe 2009 hereinabove, does not disclose wherein chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin, wherein the first metric and the second metric are brief patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) values for social participation. However, Khutok discloses wherein chronic pain associated with a condition is alleviated in the user (page 108, Materials and Methods, Subject and Study Design, “ chronic low back pain … patients with musculoskeletal conditions ” & Materials and Methods, Data Analysis, “improvement” ) , when the second metric (page 110, Table 2, A bility to participate in social roles and activities , 4-wk mean 51.7 ) is increased from the first metric by a margin (page 108, Materials and Methods, Data Analysis & Responsiveness, “a positive value indicated an improvement … statistically significant differences” & page 110, Table 2, A bility to participate in social roles and activities , Baseline mean 50.5 ) (Examiner note: the mean of 51.7 in wk-4 is greater than the mean 0f 50.5 at baseline and is therefore increased) , wherein the first metric and the second metric are brief patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) values for social participation (page 110, Table 2, PROMIS-29 Domains , A bility to participate in social roles and activities ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton, as modified by Sharpe 2009 hereinabove, such that chronic pain associated with rheumatoid arthritis is alleviated in the user, when the second metric is increased from the first metric by the second predetermined margin, wherein the first metric and the second metric are brief patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) values for social participation , in view of the teachings of Khutok , as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the measures/visual analogue scale of Carleton for the PROMIS-29 Domains Ability to participate in social roles and activities score of Khutok to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the PROMIS-29 scales to determine the alleviation or improvement of symptoms. Claim s 14- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carleton in view of Bernstein ( US 20150104771 A1 ). Regarding claim 14 , Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1 . Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus in the respective set of stimuli in each session are both of a stimulus type of a plurality of stimulus types, wherein the plurality of stimulus types includes a text stimulus type, a scenic image stimulus type, a facial expression image stimulus type, or a video stimulus type. Bernstein directed to method and a system for monitoring and training attention allocation by applying at least one sensory stimulus over a human subject discloses wherein the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus in the respective set of stimuli (step 21, “one target image and one neutral (distracting) image” in fig. 2) in each session (“set of training sessions each session includes”, para. [0023]) are both of a stimulus type of a plurality of stimulus types ( “images”, para. [0006, 0057], fig. 2 ) , wherein the plurality of stimulus types includes a text stimulus type, a scenic image stimulus type, a facial expression image stimulus type, or a video stimulus type ( “images, words”, para. [0006, 0057] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that the first visual stimulus and the second visual stimulus in the respective set of stimuli in each session are both of a stimulus type of a plurality of stimulus types, wherein the plurality of stimulus types includes a text stimulus type, a scenic image stimulus type, a facial expression image stimulus type, or a video stimulus type , in view of the teachings of Bernstein , as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the stimuli of Carleton for the stimuli of Bernstein presented in sessions for training attention allocation . Regarding claim 1 5, Carleton discloses t he method of claim 1 . Carleton does not expressly disclose wherein at least one session of the plurality of sessions comprises providing a feedback indication for the user based on at least one of ( i ) a time elapsed between the presentation of the visual probe and a response by the user to presentation of the visual probe and (ii) a response by the user to the presentation of the visual probe. However, Bernstein directed to method and a system for monitoring and training attention allocation by applying at least one sensory stimulus over a human subject discloses wherein at least one session of the plurality of sessions (“set of training sessions each session includes”, para. [0023]) comprises providing a feedback indication for the user based on at least one of ( i ) a time elapsed between the presentation of the visual probe and a response by the user to presentation of the visual probe and (ii) a response by the user to the presentation of the visual probe (“ outputting a feedback indicative of the measured at least one attention allocation index ” ; “time it took the subject to divert his/her gaze from a target image to a reference point or the subject’s input response to a provided task”; “feedback … reaction time … measure of attentional allocation … presented to the subject” , para. [0023 , 0048-0049, 0052-0055 ] , fig. 2 ) . Bernstein further discloses the system as a training tool by providing the subject with feedback indicative of these response related parameters to help subjects neutralize psychopathogenic effects of attentional bias (para. [0046, 0060]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carleton such that at least one session of the plurality of sessions comprises providing a feedback indication for the user based on at least one of ( i ) a time elapsed between the presentation of the visual probe and a response by the user to presentation of the visual probe and (ii) a response by the user to the presentation of the visual probe , in view of the teachings of Bernstein, in order to provide a training tool by providing the subject with feedback indicative of these response related parameters to help subjects neutralize psychopathogenic effects of attentional bias . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : deCharms ( US 20050283053 A1 ) directed to a computer assisted method for treating pain in a subject (para. [0017, 0163-0165, 0219-0221]) ; Burwell ( US 20210315508 A1 ) directed to assessing motivated attention with cue reactivity (fig. 7); Sharpe 2012 ( Sharpe et al. , Is there a potential role for attention bias modification in pain patients? Results of 2 randomised , controlled trials, PAIN, Volume 153, Issue 3, 2012, p ages 722-731, ISSN 0304-3959, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.12.014 ) directed to determining if there is a potential role for attention bias modification in pain patients . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4522 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Marmor II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4730 . 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