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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht (US 10,839,707) in view of Bogdanski et al. (US 2021/0090714).
Regarding claim 1, Javanbakht teaches a psychotherapy system (Fig. 1, system 100; Col. 3, lines 29-44; Col. 4, lines 44-63) comprising:
head-mounted device (HMD) (Col. 6, lines 48-50; Fig. 1, device 104a) including:
a near-eye display (NED) (Col. 6, lines 53-62; Fig. 1, user interface 114; Col. 7, lines 63-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-15);
a speaker (Fig. 1, feedback device 118; Col. 8, lines 18-23);
a microphone (Col. 7, lines 36-43);
at least one biofeedback sensor (Col. 7, lines 23-35);
a processor (Fig. 1, processor 106) in communication with the NED, the speaker, the microphone, and the at least one biofeedback sensor (Col. 5, lines 3-19); and
a system memory (Fig. 1, memory 108) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the HMD to (Col. 4, lines 57-63):
display a virtual environment (Col. 6, lines 53-62; Fig. 2, augmented portion 202) including a provider augmented reality image (Fig. 1, user 101; Col. 11, lines 32-37);
allow a patient (Fig. 1, user 103) to communicate with the provider augmented reality image in real-time via the speaker and microphone (Col. 8, lines 2-5; Col. 11, lines 32-37; Col. 14, lines 2-6); and
measure at least one biofeedback information using the at least one biofeedback sensor (Fig. 6, block 604; Col. 4, lines 31-36; Col. 7, lines 18-23 and lines 44-62) correlated to a communication between the provider augmented reality image (Col. 11, lines 32-37) and the patient avatar or the virtual environment (Col. 6, lines 63-67; Col. 7, lines 39-47; Col. 7, lines 52-62; wherein the sensor outputs indicative of the patient’s reactions 103 may be communicated to the practitioner’s device 102).
Javanbakht fails to teach wherein the virtual environment includes a provider avatar and a patient avatar.
Bogdanski et al. teaches an analogous system wherein the virtual environment includes a provider avatar and a patient avatar (paras. 0018-0019 and 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the psychotherapy system of Javanbakht with the patient and provider avatars of Bogdanski et al. Incorporating user selected avatars may facilitate cognitive, emotional, behavioral and neurological change in the patient (Bogdanski et al., para. 0019).
Regarding claim 2, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the psychotherapy system according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the at least one biofeedback sensors is an electroencephalogram (EEG) (Javanbakht, Col. 7, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 3, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the psychotherapy system according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising a remote server (Fig. 1, server 105) in communication with the HMD (Fig. 1, network 120,) the instructions further including transmitting visual information, audio information, and biometric information from the HMD to the remote server for determination of state data correlated (Javanbakht, Col. 3, lines 11-13; Col. 6, lines 9-40; Col. 7, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 4, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the psychotherapy system according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the NED (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, user interface 114; Col. 7, lines 63-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-15), the speaker (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, feedback device 118; Col. 8, line 19), and the microphone (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, sensor 116; Col. 7, line 36) are included as part of a computing device separate from the HMD (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, wherein device 104a is depicted as augmented reality glasses).
Regarding claim 5, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the psychotherapy system according to claim 1 as stated wherein the HMD includes a housing, and wherein the computing device is configured to be secured to the housing (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Javanbakht teaches a method for remote psychotherapy (Fig. 5, process 500; Col. 15, lines 29-67 and Col. 16, lines 1-15), comprising:
preparing a virtual environment for a remote therapy session (Fig. 5, block 514; Col. 15, lines 66-67 and Col. 16, lines 1-3);
preparing a provider augmented image for a provider (Fig. 1, user 101; Col. 11, lines 32-37);
receiving biofeedback information from said patient (Fig. 5, block 516; Col. 12, lines 34-37, wherein user reactions are received by way of sensors 116) correlated to a communication to the patient from the provider augmented reality image (Fig. 1, network 120; Col. 6, lines 63-67; Col. 7, lines 39-43) or the virtual environment;
determining state information about said patient based on the biofeedback information (Col. 7, lines 44-47); and
providing the state information to said provider (Col. 7, lines 52-62, wherein the practitioner’s device 102 may receive sensor data indicative of the patient’s 103 user reactions).
Javanbakht fails to teach preparing a provider avatar for a provider and preparing a patient avatar for a patient.
Bogdanski et al. teaches an analogous method further comprising preparing a provider avatar for a provider and preparing a patient avatar for a patient (paras. 0018-0019 and 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for remote psychotherapy of Javanbakht with the patient and provider avatars of Bogdanski et al. Incorporating user selected avatars may facilitate cognitive, emotional, behavioral and neurological change in the patient (Bogdanski et al., para. 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the provider avatar is based at least partially on a Jungian archetype (Bogdanski et al., Abstract; paras. 0016-0018 and 0021, wherein the therapist may personify a “caregiver” archetype).
Regarding claim 8, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein preparing the virtual environment includes receiving a selection from said patient (Javanbakht, Fig. 5, blocks 502-506; Col. 15, lines 40-52; wherein the user’s device 104 may receive selected guidance information, i.e., treatment parameters, from the user via the user interface 114; Col. 11, lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 9, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein said provider is located remotely from said patient (Javanbakht, Col. 3, lines 47-49; Col. 4, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 10, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein receiving the biofeedback information includes receiving electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor measurements (Javanbakht, Col. 7, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 11, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 10 as stated above further comprising providing the EEG sensor measurements to said provider (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, user 101 and device 102; Col. 7, lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 13, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein determining the state information includes determining an emotion of said patient based on the biofeedback information (Javanbakht, Col. 7, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 16, Javanbakht teaches a remote psychotherapy system (Fig. 1, system 100; Col. 3, lines 45-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-3), comprising:
a memory and processor, the memory including instructions which, when accessed by the processor, cause the processor to (Col. 4, lines 57-63; Fig. 1, memory 108 and processor 106):
prepare a virtual environment for a remote therapy session (Fig. 5, block 514; Col. 15, lines 66-67 and Col. 16, lines 1-3);
prepare a provider augmented reality image for a provider (Fig. 1, user 101; Col. 11, lines 32-37);
receive biofeedback information from said patient (Fig. 5, block 516; Col. 12, lines 34-37, wherein user reactions are received by way of sensors 116) correlated to a communication to the patient from the provider augmented reality image (Fig. 1, network 120; Col. 6, lines 63-67; Col. 7, lines 39-43) or the virtual environment;
determine state information about said patient based on the biofeedback information (Col. 7, lines 44-47); and
provide the state information to said provider (Col. 7, lines 52-62, wherein the practitioner’s device 102 may receive sensor data indicative of the patient’s 103 user reactions).
Javanbakht fails to teach preparing a provider avatar for a provider and preparing a patient avatar for a patient.
Bogdanski et al. teaches an analogous system wherein a processor prepares a provider avatar for a provider and a patient avatar for a patient (paras. 0018-0019 and 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the remote psychotherapy system of Javanbakht with the patient and provider avatars of Bogdanski et al. Incorporating user selected avatars may facilitate cognitive, emotional, behavioral and neurological change in the patient (Bogdanski et al., para. 0019).
Regarding claim 17, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the system according to claim 16 as stated above wherein the provider avatar is based at least partially on a Jungian archetype (Bogdanski et al., Abstract; paras. 0016-0018 and 0021, wherein the therapist may personify a “caregiver” archetype).
Regarding claim 18, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the system according to claim 16 as stated above wherein said provider is located remotely from said patient (Javanbakht, Col. 3, lines 47-49; Col. 4, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 19, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the system according to claim 16 as stated above wherein receiving the biofeedback information includes receiving electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor measurements (Javanbakht, Col. 7, lines 23-27).
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al., further in view of Samec et al. (US 2017/0323485).
Regarding claim 12, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 10 as stated above. Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. fails to teach wherein determining the state information includes at least partially filtering the EEG sensor measurements and comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements.
Samec et al. teaches an analogous method for remote psychotherapy wherein determining the state information includes at least partially filtering the EEG sensor measurements (paras. 0311, 0315-0316) and comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements (paras. 0224, 0227, 0232. and 0319).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for remote psychotherapy of Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. with the filtered and analyzed EEG measurements of Samec et al. Filtering the EEG sensor measurements removes the noise, errors, and/or artifacts in the data. Furthermore, by comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements, analytical correlations between known health conditions and the user’s physiological state may be determined - further resulting in a more accurate medical diagnosis (Samec et al., paras. 0224-0227, 0232, and 0316).
Regarding claim 14, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above. Javanbakht further teaches a user profile (Col. 6, lines 13-20); however, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. fails to specifically teach retrieving a user profile including at least one of previous state information or previous biofeedback information and wherein determining the state information includes comparing the at least one of the previous state information or the previous biofeedback information with at least one of the state information or the biofeedback information.
Samec et al. teaches an analogous method for remote psychotherapy further comprising retrieving a user profile including at least one of previous state information or previous biofeedback information (paras. 0007-0008, wherein the initial prediction model is based on initially/previously collected sensor data; para. 0293; Fig. 9E, block 910) and wherein determining the state information includes comparing the at least one of the previous state information or the previous biofeedback information with at least one of the state information or the biofeedback information (Fig. 9E, block 940; para. 0296).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for remote psychotherapy of Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. with the user profile and biofeedback comparative analysis of Samec et al. Comparing previous user sensor data to current data may assist in determining whether or not a patient has developed or is displaying symptoms related to a specific medical condition (Samec et al., para. 0293-0297).
Regarding claim 20, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. teaches the system according to claim 19 as stated above. Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. fails to teach wherein determining the state information includes at least partially filtering the EEG sensor measurements and comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements.
Samec et al. teaches an analogous remote psychotherapy system wherein determining the state information includes at least partially filtering the EEG sensor measurements (paras. 0311, 0315-0316) and comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements (paras. 0224, 0227, 0232. and 0319).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the remote psychotherapy system of Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. with the filtered and analyzed EEG measurements of Samec et al. Filtering the EEG sensor measurements removes the noise, errors, and/or artifacts in the data. Furthermore, by comparing the filtered EEG sensor measurements to historical measurements, analytical correlations between known health conditions and the user’s physiological state may be determined – further resulting in a more accurate medical diagnosis (Samec et al., paras. 0224-0227, 0232, and 0316).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al. and Samec et al., further in view of Cook et al. (US 2017/0259167).
Regarding claim 15, Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al., further in view of Samec et al. teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above. Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al., further in view of Samec et al. fails to teach providing a page template of a graphical user interface (GUI) of a provider device to said provider; and populating at least one of the biofeedback information or the state information in the page template.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook et al. teaches providing a page template of a graphical user interface (GUI) of a provider device to said provider (Fig. 5, node 42, para. 0096, wherein a node may be a computer connected to a system 40 via network 70; conceivably, the computer may belong to a third party, i.e., a provider; Fig. 9; para. 0150) ; and
populating at least one of the biofeedback information or the state information in the page template (para. 0153; Fig. 11; paras. 0120 and 0153-0154, wherein the EEG signals are presented as data graphs 204a-204h).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method for remote psychotherapy of Javanbakht in view of Bogdanski et al., further in view of Samec et al. with the page template of Cook et al. Implementing a page template depicting biofeedback information and configured to be observed during a VR session may be useful in determining the effect of the VR intervention as it relates to the user’s physiological state (Cook et al., Abstract; paras. 0041, 0119-0120, 0150-0155, and 0187-0221).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peled (US 2005/0019734) discloses a VR device configured to measure and diagnosis a subject’s reactions at different levels of behaviors wherein the analysis of the subject’s behavior is clustered into profiles representing mental state categories. Orr et al. (US 2020/0178885) discloses a virtual or augmented reality environment wherein a patient’s biofeedback is analyzed in order to tailor a virtual training simulation. Tien et al. (US 2019/0200920) teaches a biofeedback VR system designed to monitor one or more physiological parameters while presenting an immersive VR environment. Further, users have the ability to customize their avatars within the immersive environment. Kim et al. (US 2002/128540) discloses a VR system for enhancing attention comprising a virtual environment, an attention enhancement software module, a biofeedback device, and an external doctor. Koo Mee et al. (KR 20180073836) teaches a psychological diagnosis system using a virtual reality environment wherein a consultant using reference diagnosis data and story content corresponding to a therapy item and a virtual reality environment derives an accurate psychological diagnosis result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights