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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/24/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos et al. (US 2014/0160157) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2016/0342767) and further in view of Rufo et al. (US 11,581,099).
Regarding claim 1, Poulos teaches a method comprising:
at a device including one or more biometric sensors, an image sensor, and a display (Fig. 1, sensors, display and camera in a device 19):
determining, at a first time after a time of a scheduled task and based on data from at least (examiner notes the alternative language requiring only one of the following to meet the claimed) one of the image sensor and the one or more biometric sensors, whether a user of the device has performed a scheduled task (paragraph 32 teaches a natural user interface using camera and sensors and gesture recognition software running on a processor and are used to control various aspects of a computing application. In paragraphs 93-94 a task in the form of a reminder to complete tasks, is judged to be completed or not based on gestural input with the user interface. Completion is also determined based on paragraph 104s “an interaction with the second person is detected based on one or more images” and later “it is determined that a reminder has been completed based on the detection of the interaction”. However, while Poulos teaches “a completion time”’ for the required reminder, which is for the task on the list of things to do, fails to explicitly teach that the determination occurs “at a first time after a time of a scheduled task”); and
However, while Poulos teaches that the device 19 performs task reminders, fails to additionally teach the aspect of the first time after a time of a scheduled task, also fails to teach the remaining aspects of the claim.
Narasimhan also teaches “a first time” in Fig. 5A, wherein after the “Medication Time”, which is the time of the task, the determination steps that follow checks whether or not a scheduled task (medication) is completed or not. Therefore, Narasimhan teaches: in accordance with a determination that the user has not performed the scheduled task, initiating, at a second time after the first time, on the display, of an indication that the user has not performed the scheduled task (Fig. 5A, wherein at a second time after the determination of reminders, “Beep Vibrate Display” step is repeated at a second time after it is not taken the first time. Or it can be repeated a third time after the medication is not taken the second time around.); and
Narasimhan is an analogous prior art that also utilizes a worn device termed as a Patient Word Device (PWD), utilizing the sensors to perform real-time monitoring to measure the patient’s engagement (paragraphs 125-132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Narasimhan to additionally include the ability to determine whether a user has performed the task by the time (Yes/No -> 3 times over in Fig. 5A), to display the reminder by the time of the scheduled task into the prior art of Poulos such that Poulos’ system such that Poulos’ initial reminder is followed by modifying it with a reminder of completing the task “by a time of the scheduled task”, because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving patient outcome by improving medication adherence (paragraphs 2-9).
Furthermore, while Narasimhan teaches forgoing display of the indication when the scheduled task is determined to be completed is also shown in Fig. 5A wherein the routine for reminder is stopped when the “Med list is completed” -> Yes in the flowchart. However, fails to teach that after the first time of a scheduled task, if the user has performed the scheduled task to forego display of a reminder of sorts.
In an analogous art, Rufo teaches the claimed: in accordance with a determination that the user has performed the scheduled task, forgoing display of any indication that the user has not performed the scheduled task (Fig. 22 and col. 27, line 59-67 teaches wherein at a medication adherence system checks sensors and video data to check whether the user takes a medication at determination 604, which is after a “first time” after the scheduled calendar event (step 600), event completion is further detected in step 605 with an event complete routine without any further displays or any indications. Additionally, col. 62, lines 37- col. 63, line 27 also states another teaching wherein the system is able to “analyze video data from the video cameras 818 to determine whether the scheduled dose of medicine was taken” after step 826 which is after the “time … for scheduled medication to be taken”, via verbal interactions, not “display of any indication” as claimed.)
Therefore, while Poulos and Narasimhan teaches a first way in which medication time adherence is handled by a user having to be reminded via a visual display, Rufo teaches alternate ways in which no further visual reminders are needed to be displayed after a “time … for scheduled medication to be taken” because the system can verify via visual analysis of the video and voice commands uttered that the medications were taken.
The visual reminder display/indication of the primary reference is not essential to the determination itself, but rather serves as one mechanism for obtaining confirmation. Because the secondary reference independently provides confirmation of medication intake through visual and audio analysis without explicitly requiring a visual reminder display/indication, the visual reminder may be omitted, bypassed, or even retained as optional without affecting system operability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Rufo into the proposed combination of Poulos and Narasimhan because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving user efficiency of the system by improving safety of the patient (col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 3, Poulos and Narasimhan teaches the claimed wherein determining whether the user has performed the scheduled task is based on data from the one or more biometric sensors without being based on data from the image sensor (Poulos in paragraph 93 teaches wherein the sensors sensing user’s interaction with the user interface is used to judge completion of task/reminder. Narasimhan also teaches utilizing the sensors to perform real-time monitoring to measure the patient’s engagement in paragraphs 125-132).
Regarding claim 5, Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo teaches the claimed wherein the one or more biometric sensors includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Poulos: paragraph 30, Narasimhan teaches in paragraph 7, Rufo: abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Poulos teaches the claimed wherein the indication includes a virtual object describing the scheduled task (See Figs. 4A-4B, Virtual objects describing task/reminder).
Regarding claim 7, Poulos teaches the claimed wherein the virtual object includes a dismiss affordance for ceasing to display the virtual object (paragraph 32 teaches a natural user interface using camera and sensors and gesture recognition software running on a processor and are used to control various aspects of a computing application. In paragraphs 93-94 a task in the form of a reminder to complete tasks, is judged to be completed or not based on gestural input with the user interface including interacting with a button meeting the claimed dismiss affordance).
Regarding claim 10, Narasimhan teaches the claimed further comprising: while displaying the indication that the user has not performed the scheduled task, detecting the user perform the scheduled task; and in response to detecting the user perform the scheduled task, ceasing display of the indication (Fig. 5A, after the reminders (1st through 3rd) a user is able to complete the task and the process is stopped, thereby ceasing the display of the reminder).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 and furthermore the device is met by the HMD device 19 in Poulos with memory and processors as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 5-7 and 10, respectively.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 1 and 11 above and furthermore the software stores on the medium is taught in paragraphs 32-33 and 122.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 6 and 10, respectively.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos et al. (US 2014/0160157) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2016/0342767) further in view of Rufo et al. (US 11,581,099) and further in view of Bartfeld (US2010/0042430).
Regarding claim 2, Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above. In the proposed combination, Poulos teaches completion is also determined based on paragraph 104s “an interaction with the second person is detected based on one or more images” and later “it is determined that a reminder has been completed based on the detection of the interaction”. However, neither Poulos or Narasimhan teaches detecting whether a task/medication is completed based only on data from the image sensors.
Bartfeld teaches using images captured from a camera to make the determination that a task has been completed (paragraphs 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Bartfeld into the proposed combination of Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo such that Poulos/Narasimhan is modified to use images from the camera of Poulos to determine medication consumption event, because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving medication efficacy for the patient (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Poulos, Narasimhan, Rufo and Bartfeld combined teaches the claimed wherein determining whether the user has performed the scheduled task is based on data from both the image sensor and the one or more biometric sensors (as discussed in claims 2 and 3 above, Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo all teaches sensors used to determine the task being performed, while Bartfeld teaches using images to determine the task being performed by the time of the scheduled task). The prior motivation as discussed in claims 2 and 3 above are incorporated herein.
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos et al. (US 2014/0160157) in view of Narasimhan et al. (US 2016/0342767) further in view of Rufo et al. (US 11,581,099) and further in view of Schweinfurth et al. (US 11,094,124).
Regarding claim 8, Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, including displaying a virtual object in association with a related person being detected by the camera however isn’t explicit about the virtual object being directly displayed in association with a real object and therefore fails to teach, however, Schweinfurth teaches wherein the indication includes a virtual object displayed in association with a real object associated with the scheduled task (Figs. $b, 4D, 4E teaches wherein real objects are associated with a virtual object being displayed in association).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Schweinfurth into the system of Poulos, Narasimhan and Rufo so that Poulos’ virtual object can also be associated directly over real objects because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving user experience by allowing tasks to be easily identifiable by the user.
Regarding claim 9, Poulos also teaches the claimed wherein the virtual object is a glow surrounding the real object (col. 4, lines 36-51 teaches highlight around a real world object, thereby highlighting the surrounded real world object). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 8-9, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481