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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 23 February 2026, wherein:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9-12 are amended.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 8 are original.
Claims 13 and 14 are new.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must
be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites abbreviations. The first instance of an abbreviation should be accompanied by the fully written term. Non-limiting examples of where the fully written term is missing are at least “NFC”, “AI”, and “PVC”.
Line 26 of pg. 9 has an errant space between the letter “s” and the rest of the letters in the term “such”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7, and 9-12 recite both “said” and “the”. Claims 2-6, 8, 13, and 14 recite only “said”. This decreases clarity. Uniformity is recommended.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 each claim a product and process in the same claim. In particular, with respect to independent claim 1, the preamble is directed to a product (“A therapeutic system”) while the limitations drawn to a product are “a device comprising a frame encompassing a volumetric area; said device further comprising a plurality of suspension cables that cross portions of said cubic volume of said frame; said suspension cables having one or more balls and/or other solid elements positioned on said suspension cables; said device positioned such that the cubic volume encompassed by said device, including the device frame, is accessible to a user;… said therapeutic device operative to allow for proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks and conveying said tasks to said user as a set of instructions to achieving said pre-set therapy session goal;… said therapeutic device operative to permit modifications to said selected set of instructions to modify the complexity of any of the proprioceptive, visual tracking, or vestibular tasks to correct user deviations from said received instruction” and the limitations drawn to a process are “determining a pre-set therapy session goal utilizing the device frame and said one or more balls and/or other solid elements;… said user responding to an instruction selected from said set of instructions by interacting with said balls and/or other solid elements to follow or complete said selected instruction; receiving additional instructions selected from said set of instructions to interact with said balls and/or other solid elements and suspension cables to progress to said pre-set therapy session goal;… completing said plurality of instructions of proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks for movement and interaction with said frame, balls and/or other solid elements, and suspension cables and achieving said pre-set therapy session goal.” Similarly, dependent claims 2-4 recite further product limitations but retain the process limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-8 and 14 recite further process limitations but retain the product limitations of independent claim 1. With respect to independent claim 9, the preamble is directed to a process (“A method”) while the limitation drawn to a product is “a cubic volume defined by a cubic frame and having a plurality of suspension cables and balls and/or other solid elements positioned on each suspension cable, said cubic frame located such that said cubic volume is fully accessible to a user”. The remainder of the limitations of claim 9 and the dependent claims 10-13 are drawn to a process. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(II). Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said therapeutic device" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-8 and 14 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding new limitations “said therapeutic device operative to allow for proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks and conveying said tasks to said user as a set of instructions to achieving said pre-set therapy session goal” and “said therapeutic device operative to permit modifications to said selected set of instructions to modify the complexity of any of the proprioceptive, visual tracking, or vestibular tasks to correct user deviations from said received instruction”. In particular, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding “proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks”. This includes being silent regarding “conveying said tasks to said user as a set of instructions” as well as modifying instructions “to modify the complexity of any of the proprioceptive, visual tracking, or vestibular tasks”. Thus, this is new matter and is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.06. Dependent claims 2-8 and 14 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding new limitations “said user receiving a set of instructions to perform tasks defining movement and interaction related to proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities to permit said user to achieve said therapeutic goal”. In particular, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding “proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities”. This includes being silent regarding “a set of instructions to perform tasks defining movement and interaction related to proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities”. Thus, this is new matter and is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2163.06. Dependent claims 10-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “connecting said therapeutic device with a networked computer to establish and operate additional therapeutic and play actions utilizing Augmented Reality (AR) and/or Virtual Reality (VR) environment extensions” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. An applicant may show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that "if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function".)." Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function." Id. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3). Claims may also lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification, at best, merely recites similar language as the claim without providing any meaningful description of the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1-4 which are silent regarding these features, as well as at least line 24 of pg. 7 – line 29 of pg. 10 in the specification. For instance, while line 24 of pg. 7 – line 6 of pg. 9 generically discuss AR and VR, line 8 of pg. 9 – line 29 of pg. 10 describe the device as illustrated in Fig. 1-3B as entirely physical with no mention of any electronic or computerized elements, nor any contemplation that such elements are included in the device. More explicitly, lines 10-21 of pg. 9, with respect to Fig. 1, recite
“the apparatus comprises an exercise matrix device 10, shown here in perspective view, having a cubic frame 12. The cubic frame 12 may be composed of any material such as plastic piping, PVC, metal piping, wood, or any other material that may be formed into frame members having a circular cross-section… The cubic volume outlined by the frame members of the cubic frame 12 may be crossed by a plurality of suspension cables or cords 16. The suspension cables 16 may cross the cubic volume in a linear orientation passing in a straight line directly from one side of the cubic volume to another, or may cross the cubic volume in a diagonal orientation, or may be oriented vertically, again crossing from one side of the cubic frame to another side of the cubic frame. The plurality of suspension cables may be connected in any or all of the orientations herein described to create a pre-determined setup for the cable configuration to achieve one or more therapeutic goals. In an embodiment, each of the suspension cables 16 may be configured with one or more balls 20. The balls 20 may consist of different sized and different colored balls with a suspension cable 16 passing through each ball such that the ball may be slideably moved along the suspension cable 16 in either direction under the impetus of a client.”
Additionally, lines 15-23 of pg. 10, with respect to Fig. 3A, recite
“an action ball 20 may be constructed such that the action ball 20 has a snap connection component and further comprises internal ribbing to maintain the structure. The action ball 20 may be a solid color, such as all blue, or may be composed of multiple colors with sections of
the action ball 20 one color while other sections of the action ball 20 may be a different color from the first color. The action ball 20 may split apart to facilitate the placement and replacement of the action balls 20 on the suspension cables (not shown). Each action ball 20 may have a hole of the appropriate diameter through the external skin and internal ribbing to
permit the attachment to the suspension cables and passage of the action ball 20 along the suspension cable.”
These descriptions are silent regarding any electronic or computerized elements, let alone any capability to integrate any electronic or computerized elements. As identified above, the only mention of the mere use of AR or VR is found in line 24 of pg. 7 – line 6 of pg. 9. For instance, lines 24-26 of pg. 9 merely recite the same language as the claim that the therapy apparatus may be provided with a networked computer connection while the disclosure is silent regarding how such a networked computer connection is integrated into the analog therapy apparatus. Further evidence is found in lines 29-31 of pg. 7 which generically recites that “[i]n an AR implementation, the balls may be filled with sound and light emitters that will also be tied into a central networked computer server” and lines 8-10 of pg. 8 which generically recites that the “AR implementation may also add touch sensors to the balls to collect information on user accuracy and reaction time when interacting with the balls having touch sensors installed within.” As illustrated in at least Fig. 3A and identified in the citation above, the disclosure is silent regarding any contemplation for how such emitters and sensors are integrated into the balls. It is further noted that the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description of what these sound and light emitters and “touch sensors” are. In other words, if the sound and light emitters and touch sensors were to be claimed, they would invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) and be rejected under 35 USC 112(a)-(b) because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding a VR environment, lines 21-28 of pg. 8 recites that a person, in their own home, wears a non-descript headset and is “instantly brought into a volumetric space which looks very similar to the existing form of the therapeutic apparatus”. Thus, in the VR environment, the user is not interacting with the claimed physical therapeutic device as it is not even physically present with the user. In other words, the therapeutic device is virtual in the VR environment, not physical as claimed. Therefore, the VR environment extension, as claimed, is new matter. Additionally, any amendments to claim the headset would also risk interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) and be rejected under 35 USC 112(a)-(b) under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 1 recites “determining a pre-set therapy session goal”. Dependent claim 8 recites “said pre-established goal is formulated to achieve a therapeutic effect for said user.” A “pre-set therapy session goal” is a pre-establish goal formulated to achieve a therapeutic effect for the user. Thus, claim 8 is redundant of the identified limitation in independent claim 1 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 9 recites “said user receiving a set of instructions to perform tasks defining movement and interaction related to proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities to permit said user to achieve said therapeutic goal; a facilitator observing task performance by said user and providing subsequent instructions reactive to said user movement within the cubic frame and interacting with said suspension cables and said balls and/or other solid elements; said user receiving subsequent instructions for movement and interaction with said device in furtherance of achieving said pre-determined therapeutic goal; said user reaching said pre-determined goal within a session through said task movement and interaction and concluding said session upon reaching said pre-determined therapeutic goal.” Dependent claim 13 recites “said facilitator provides guidance to said user utilizing a protocol of commands, suggestions, actions, and motions to achieve a preestablished goal for a session.” Thus, claim 13 is redundant of the identified limitations in independent claim 9 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Independent claim 1 recites “[a] therapeutic system, comprising:… said user responding to an instruction”. Thus, the claimed system encompasses a human organism because the user is claimed as an element of the system. Dependent claims 2-8 and 14 inherit the deficiencies of their respective claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleman (US 2018/0036584). Kleman discloses substantively the same product from the same inventor as that of the instant application. However, Kleman’s publication date is more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Regarding claim 1, Kleman teaches a therapeutic system, comprising:
a device comprising a frame encompassing a volumetric area (Kleman, Fig. 1 illustrates a device comprising a frame encompassing a volumetric area);
said device further comprising a plurality of suspension cables that cross portions of said cubic volume of said frame (Kleman, Fig. 1, cable assembly 16);
said suspension cables having one or more balls and/or other solid elements positioned on said suspension cables (Kleman, Fig. 1, targets 20);
said device positioned such that the cubic volume encompassed by said device, including the device frame, is accessible to a user (Kleman, Fig. 1 illustrates a user within the device cubic volume);
determining a pre-set therapy session goal utilizing the device frame and said one or more balls and/or other solid elements (Kleman, para. 24, “Referring again to FIG. 1, for a rehabilitation patient, the subject may start on the floor, executing rolling and crawling movement positions. They are given a parameter to follow but not a specific way of making the movement happen.” Para. 30, “The parameters can be set where each target obtained has to be from crossing over the body from right to left, or right to left in order to achieve the task.”);
said therapeutic device operative to allow for proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks and conveying said tasks to said user as a set of instructions to achieving said pre-set therapy session goal (Kleman, para. 23, “For rehabilitative subjects, the 3D frame 10 of the present invention may be utilized to start the subject with a regression to infant style movements and then progresses the subject through improvised movements, thereby rebuilding the subject's body movement systems, both physical and cognitive, in an easier more comprehensive way, reconnecting the mind body connection through movement.” This teaching of rebuilding physical and cognitive body movement systems is construed as teaching that the therapeutic device is operative to allow proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks.);
said user responding to an instruction selected from said set of instructions by interacting with said balls and/or other solid elements to follow or complete said selected instruction (Kleman, para. 22, “The subject must then touch the specified targets 20 following the rule given.”);
receiving additional instructions selected from said set of instructions to interact with said balls and/or other solid elements and suspension cables to progress to said pre-set therapy session goal (Kleman, para. 29, “As the subject progresses, increasing the technical aspects of the targets 20 based on height, angles, and distance apart the cube 10 can be readily reconfigured to change and make movements more difficult.” Para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target.”);
said therapeutic device operative to permit modifications to said selected set of instructions to modify the complexity of any of the proprioceptive, visual tracking, or vestibular tasks to correct user deviations from said received instruction (Kleman, para. 29, “As the subject progresses, increasing the technical aspects of the targets 20 based on height, angles, and distance apart the cube 10 can be readily reconfigured to change and make movements more difficult.” Para. 31, “the cube 10 size can be changed dimensionally where the frame members 14 may be telescopic to change the challenge or ease of the exercise… The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity.”);
completing said plurality of instructions of proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular tasks for movement and interaction with said frame, balls and/or other solid elements, and suspension cables and achieving said pre-set therapy session goal (Kleman, para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target.”).
Regarding claim 2, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1 where said suspension cables are composed of metal, plastic, braided material, or any other material that may be formed into a suspension cable (Kleman, para. 19, “The cable assembly 16 is formed of a cable 18, which is preferably made of an elastic or shock cord”).
Regarding claim 3, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1 where said balls are positioned within said frame by passing said suspension cables through said balls (Kleman, Fig. 3 illustrates this; para. 21, “threading the cable 18 through the target 20”).
Regarding claim 4, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1 where said balls are slideably movable along said suspension cable upon which said balls are positioned (Kleman, Fig. 3 illustrates this; para. 21, “The targets 20 should have a frictional interface with the cable 18 to permit displacement along the cable 18 for configuration of the targets 20 on the cable 18, while maintaining the position of the target 20 on the cable 18 when the targets are disposed for use.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1 where instructions to said user are provided by a facilitator (Kleman, para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 5 where said facilitator observes user interaction with said balls within said frame and reduces level of effort required in said selected instruction in reaction to user movement (Kleman implies this at least with para. 31, “the cube 10 size can be changed dimensionally where the frame members 14 may be telescopic to change the challenge or ease of the exercise to work with small children that cannot reach 7 feet. Adjustability will also allow configuration for a high level athlete to almost reach the target but giving up to soon. This can be done using a projection into the cube or through a hardwired computer scoring system… The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity” and para. 33, “From this point the cables would be set up accordingly to… challenge desired for the client.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 5 where said facilitator observes user interaction with said balls within said frame and increases the level of effort required in said selected instruction in reaction to user movement (Kleman implies this at least with para. 29, “As the subject progresses, increasing the technical aspects of the targets 20 based on height, angles, and distance apart the cube 10 can be readily reconfigured to change and make movements more difficult”, para. 31, “the cube 10 size can be changed dimensionally where the frame members 14 may be telescopic to change the challenge or ease of the exercise to work with small children that cannot reach 7 feet. Adjustability will also allow configuration for a high level athlete to almost reach the target but giving up to soon. This can be done using a projection into the cube or through a hardwired computer scoring system… The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity”, and para. 33, “From this point the cables would be set up accordingly to… challenge desired for the client.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1 where said pre-established goal is formulated to achieve a therapeutic effect for said user (Kleman, para. 30, “With the options practically endless the uses of such a device could present great value in performance of athletes down to a fun exercise for kids to accomplish to help with development hold ups.” Similarly, throughout Kleman are references to use of the system for therapy and rehabilitation.).
Regarding claim 9, Kleman teaches a method utilizing a device to provide a therapeutic effect, said method comprising:
a cubic volume defined by a cubic frame and having a plurality of suspension cables and balls and/or other solid elements positioned on each suspension cable, said cubic frame located such that said cubic volume is fully accessible to a user (Kleman, Fig. 1 cable assembly 16, targets 20; para. 21, “The targets 20 are preferably formed of an assortment of visual indicia, such as colors, surface textures, shapes, and/or numbers to facilitate target 20 identification. Fig. 1 illustrates a user within the device cubic volume. Fig. 1, 3, and 4 illustrate the targets as balls.);
said user establishing a pre-determined therapeutic goal for interaction with said cubic frame, said suspension cables, and said balls and/or other solid elements (Kleman, para. 22, “The subject is given a rule, which may be a parameter or sequence of parameters, specifying one or more designated targets 20 they must acquire to perform a movement.”);
said user interacting with said suspension cables and said balls and/or other solid elements within and adjacent to the cubic frame (Kleman, para. 22, “The subject must then touch the specified targets 20 following the rule given.”);
said user receiving a set of instructions to perform tasks defining movement and interaction related to proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities to permit said user to achieve said therapeutic goal (Kleman, para. 23, “For rehabilitative subjects, the 3D frame 10 of the present invention may be utilized to start the subject with a regression to infant style movements and then progresses the subject through improvised movements, thereby rebuilding the subject's body movement systems, both physical and cognitive, in an easier more comprehensive way, reconnecting the mind body connection through movement.” This teaching of rebuilding physical and cognitive body movement systems is construed as teaching that the tasks, and the set of instructions to perform them, are defining movement and interaction related to proprioceptive, visual tracking, and vestibular activities. Para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target.”);
a facilitator observing task performance by said user and providing subsequent instructions reactive to said user movement within the cubic frame and interacting with said suspension cables and said balls and/or other solid elements (Kleman, para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target.” Para. 23, “start the subject with a regression to infant style movements and then progresses the subject through improvised movements”);
said user receiving subsequent instructions for movement and interaction with said device in furtherance of achieving said pre-determined therapeutic goal (Kleman, para. 22, “The subject must then touch the specified targets 20 following the rule given.” Para. 23, “start the subject with a regression to infant style movements and then progresses the subject through improvised movements”);
said user reaching said pre-determined goal within a session through said task movement and interaction and concluding said session upon reaching said pre-determined therapeutic goal (Kleman, para. 30, “The parameters can be set where each target obtained has to be from crossing over the body from right to left, or right to left in order to achieve the task.”).
Regarding claim 10, Kleman teaches the method according to claim 9 where said facilitator observes the user interaction with said balls within said frame and reduces the level of effort required in the instruction in reaction to user movement (Kleman implies this at least with para. 31, “the cube 10 size can be changed dimensionally where the frame members 14 may be telescopic to change the challenge or ease of the exercise to work with small children that cannot reach 7 feet. Adjustability will also allow configuration for a high level athlete to almost reach the target but giving up to soon. This can be done using a projection into the cube or through a hardwired computer scoring system… The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity” and para. 33, “From this point the cables would be set up accordingly to… challenge desired for the client.”).
Regarding claim 11, Kleman teaches the method according to claim 9 where said facilitator observes the user interaction with said balls within said frame and increases the level of effort required in the instruction in reaction to user movement (Kleman implies this at least with para. 29, “As the subject progresses, increasing the technical aspects of the targets 20 based on height, angles, and distance apart the cube 10 can be readily reconfigured to change and make movements more difficult”, para. 31, “the cube 10 size can be changed dimensionally where the frame members 14 may be telescopic to change the challenge or ease of the exercise to work with small children that cannot reach 7 feet. Adjustability will also allow configuration for a high level athlete to almost reach the target but giving up to soon. This can be done using a projection into the cube or through a hardwired computer scoring system… The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity”, and para. 33, “From this point the cables would be set up accordingly to… challenge desired for the client.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kleman teaches the method according to claim 9 where said facilitator provides guidance to said user utilizing a protocol of commands, suggestions, actions, and motions to achieve a preestablished goal for a session (Kleman, para. 33, “The practitioner would then instruct them on a movement score or rule to follow. For example: Touch all red targets with your right hand, and blue targets with your left hand. You must alternate and cross over your mid line to reach each target. This would help in correcting coordination and mid line dysfunction in the movement.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleman (US 2018/0036584) as applied to claim 9, in view of Haimovitz and Corpus1.
Regarding claim 12, Kleman teaches the method according to claim 9.
Kleman does not explicitly teach where said facilitator provides positive feedback to the user upon observing user effort in interaction with said device.
However, Haimovitz and Corpus identifies that “praise that focuses on learners’ efforts and strategies encourages more challenge-seeking and resilience than praise that focuses on learner’s traits or abilities”. See Haimovitz and Corpus at pg. 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the facilitator in Kleman to provide positive feedback to the user upon observing user effort in interaction with the device because positive feedback for effort, commonly called “process praise”, is known to encourage a growth mindset leading to resilience and choosing more challenging tasks.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleman (US 2018/0036584) as applied to claim 1, in view of Daniels (US 2015/0317910).
Regarding claim 14, Kleman teaches the therapeutic system according to claim 1, further comprising connecting said therapeutic device with a networked computer to establish and operate additional therapeutic and play actions (Kleman, para. 31, “This can be done using a projection into the cube or through a hardwired computer scoring system. Another way to present the system is by a holographic projection of the targets and scoring of performance. The use of movement sensors on the athlete or client can help determine common movement dysfunctions or patterns, so the next parameter can be set to help correct the bad movement pattern or increase the intensity.” The use of holographic projection/computer scoring system and movement sensors requires a networked computer to establish and operate additional therapeutic and play actions.).
Kleman does not explicitly teach utilizing Augmented Reality (AR) and/or Virtual Reality (VR) environment extensions.
However, in a related art, Daniels teaches utilizing Augmented Reality (AR) and/or Virtual Reality (VR) environment extensions (Daniels, para. 1, “a method and apparatus for providing accelerated learning, entertainment and/or cognitive or physical therapy using augmented and/or virtual reality, comprising combined sensory cues, including, but not limited to, haptic, auditory and visual stimulation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the AR and VR capabilities as taught by Daniels for the holographic projection in Kleman to utilize AR and/or VR environment extensions because AR and/or VR enable effective accelerated learning and cognitive therapy using deep immersion. See Daniels at para. 8. Thus, it is substituting one known element for another to yield predictable results.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to address lack of claim uniformity.
Examiner is not persuaded. While it is noted that some attempt to amend the claims address the reciting of both “said” and “the” in the claims, both terms remain in the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to correct the claim dependency from claim 15.
Examiner is not persuaded. Claim 15 does not exist in the pending claims, and dependency from claim 15 was not identified as a rejection. However, the amendments did not obviate the rejection of claims 1-8 for claiming a product and a process in the same claim. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended to obviate the rejection.
Examiner is not persuaded. Claim language remains such that the claimed system encompasses a human organism. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the amended claims are novel and non-obvious over Kleman.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Haimovitz and Corpus do not cure the deficiencies of Kleman to teach the amended claims.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Haimovitz, K., & Henderlong Corpus, J. (2011). Effects of person versus process praise on student motivation: Stability and change in emerging adulthood. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.585950