DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s RCE filed 1/30/2026, claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (US 2014/0065585) in view of Fraser et al. (US 11,244,385).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, Osborn discloses a system for automated therapy that comprises a system that engages a user in conversation based upon a pre-defined protocol to form a relationship with the user and guide the user with the therapy. See paragraphs 0040 and 0046. Osborn discloses wherein the system can be represented by an avatar. See paragraph 0142. Osborn discloses wherein the system tracks the user’s behavior and measures over time and guides the user to comply with the therapy. See paragraphs 0043 and 0047. Osborn discloses wherein the system tracks and measures the user’s state of mind with regard to a pre-defined psychotherapeutic protocol and behavioral model. See paragraph 0043.
Osborn does not explicitly disclose wherein the therapy involves a conversation with a real-time response, wherein the subsequent real-time communication from the avatar is adapted based upon this response. However, this concept is established with regard to therapy systems, as is disclosed by the coaching system of Fraser in col. 19: 5-13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Osborn system, so as to provide responsive therapy (the advantage of the concept in Fraser).
Regarding claim 2, Osborn discloses wherein the avatar contacts the user at useful times. See paragraph 0055.
Regarding claim 3, Fraser discloses wherein the avatar can generate a contextual response based upon a stimulus from the user. See col. col. 10: 34-43.
Regarding claim 4, Osborn discloses wherein past interactions are analyzed and interactions are personalized based thereon. See paragraph 0047.
Regarding claim 5, Osborn discloses wherein the system can be used for various types of therapy. See paragraph 0040.
Regarding claims 6-7, Osborn discloses wherein the program encourages treatment compliance and habit changing and cooperation. See paragraph 0040.
Regarding claim 8, Osborn discloses wherein the system gathers and monitors metrics regarding user performance to determine effectiveness. See paragraph 0043.
Regarding claims 9-10, Osborn discloses wherein the interactions are refined over iterations and sessions. See paragraph 0054.
Regarding claim 11, Osborn discloses wherein the avatar is rendered by a device with modular subsystems and inputs and outputs. See figs. 1a and 1b.
Regarding claims 13-14, Osborn discloses self-help with cognitive issues in paragraph 0045.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (US 2014/0065585) in view of Fraser et al. (US 11,244,385) and also Burstein et al. (US 2022/0142535).
Regarding claim 12, Osborn discloses monitoring user performance in paragraph 0043, but does not disclose monitoring pitch, tone, and facial expressions, and NLP processing, to determine outputs to help the user reach their goals. However, these parameters are known to be monitored in similar systems, as is disclosed by the monitoring system of Burstein in paragraphs 0089 and table 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Osborn system, in order to provide effective monitoring of the user.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 1/30/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached on 571-570-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights