DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination submitted March 27, 2026. Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 13 are amended. Claims 14 – 20 are cancelled (Claim 8 was previously cancelled). Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 13 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted March 27, 2026.
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.
The rejection of Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention is withdrawn based on the amendment submitted March 27, 2026.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 13 are drawn to a system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites identifying a satisfaction of a trigger event for providing feedback to a user, the trigger event associated with a goal related to physiological data of the user; wherein the feedback trains the user to achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user; monitoring physiological data collected from the user to provide feedback; determining whether the feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user based at least in part on the physiological data; selectively modifying one or more parameters of the feedback based on whether the tactile or audible feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user; and provide additional feedback to the user in accordance with the one or more modified parameters.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the present invention “relates to wearable devices and data processing, including techniques for providing conscious or subconscious feedback in accordance with a learning feedback loop using wearable-based tactile indications” (paragraph 2 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they are “directed to techniques implemented by wearable devices that are configured to provide users with feedback in order to teach or guide the users to help them achieve some goal or learning objective. Such feedback techniques may be used to consciously or subconsciously teach users about their own bodies and/or their surrounding environments, and slowly train the users to learn or take actions to help them live healthier lives, manage stress more effectively, and achieve other objectives.” (paragraph 15 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “system”, “a wearable device configured to be worn on a finger of a user”, “a user device communicatively coupled with the wearable device”, “one or more processors electronically coupled with the wearable device, the user device, or both”, “an application executing on a user device”, “tactile or audible feedback”,
Claim 2: “system”, “one or more processors”, “via a user device associated with the user”, “a user input”
Claims 3, 5 – 7: “system”, “one or more processors”, “an application executing on a user device”, “wearable device”
Claim 4: “system”, “one or more processors”, “an application executing on a user device”
Claim 9: “system”, “the tactile or audible feedback comprises one or more tactile vibrations, a temperature change of a surface of the wearable device, a pressure change exerted by the wearable device on a tissue of the user, or any combination thereof”
Claim 10: “system”, “one or more processors”, “the tactile or audible feedback in accordance with one or more characteristics of the tactile or audible feedback, wherein the one or more characteristics of the tactile or audible feedback comprise a magnitude, a volume, a cadence, or any combination thereof”
Claim 11: “system”
Claim 12: “system”, “wearable device”
Claim 13: “system”, “wearable device comprises a wearable ring device”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0024] In some aspects, user devices 106 may include handheld mobile computing devices, such as smartphones and tablet computing devices. User devices 106 may also include personal computers, such as laptop and desktop computing devices. Other example user devices 106 may include server computing devices that may communicate with other electronic devices (e.g., via the Internet). In some implementations, computing devices may include medical devices, such as external wearable computing devices (e.g., Holter monitors). Medical devices may also include implantable medical devices, such as pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators. Other example user devices 106 may include home computing devices, such as internet of things (IoT) devices (e.g., IoT devices), smart televisions, smart speakers, smart displays (e.g., video call displays), hubs ( e.g., wireless communication hubs), security systems, smart appliances ( e.g., thermostats and refrigerators), and fitness equipment.
[0031] The electronic devices of the system 100 (e.g., user devices 106, wearable devices 104) may be communicatively coupled with one or more servers 110 via wired or wireless communication protocols. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the electronic devices (e.g., user devices 106) may be communicatively coupled with one or more servers 110 via a network 108. The network 108 may implement transfer control protocol and internet protocol (TCP/IP), such as the Internet, or may implement other network 108 protocols. Network connections between the network 108 and the respective electronic devices may facilitate transport of data via email, web, text messages, mail, or any other appropriate form of interaction within a computer network 108. For example, in some implementations, the ring 104-a associated with the first user 102-a may be communicatively coupled with the user device 106-a, where the user device 106-a is communicatively coupled with the servers 110 via the network 108. In additional or alternative cases, wearable devices 104 (e.g., rings 104, watches 104) may be directly communicatively coupled with the network 108.
[0164] The processor 840 may include an intelligent hardware device, (e.g., a general-purpose processor, a DSP, a CPU, a microcontroller, an ASIC, an FPGA, a programmable logic device, a discrete gate or transistor logic component, a discrete hardware component, or any combination thereof). In some cases, the processor 840 may be configured to operate a memory array using a memory controller. In other cases, a memory controller may be integrated into the processor 840. The processor 840 may be configured to execute computer-readable instructions stored in a memory 835 to perform various functions ( e.g., functions or tasks supporting a method and system for sleep staging algorithms).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 7 and 9 – 13 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 – 2, 5 – 6, and 9 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardas (U.S. Publication Number 2017/0224273 A1) in view of English (U.S. Publication Number 2024/0023820 A1) further in view of Rus et al., herein after Rus (WO 2022/144813 A1).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended). Vardas teaches a system for generating tactile or audible feedback (Figure 8; paragraph 18 discloses the system can be implemented using a single wearable device, such as a wrist band; paragraph 31 discloses different feedback signals emitted to indicate changes in stress levels, where the duration, frequency, and magnitude of a vibration pattern is selected as the signal), comprising:
a user device communicatively coupled with the wearable device (paragraph 26 discloses smart phone app and website database link up to the biometric monitoring device); and
one or more processors electronically coupled with the wearable device, the user device, or both (claim 1 discloses at least one processor having a memory unit residing on a central computer being coupled to the plurality of sensors, the at least one processor configured to receive the biometric data for a current interval and compare the biometric data with a reference value), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
identify, at an application executing on the user device, a satisfaction of a trigger event for generating the tactile or audible feedback via the wearable device (paragraph 21 discloses the processor of the central computer can be used to activate or trigger the biofeedback indicator according to the biometric value calculated that is sensed by the sensors and evaluated by the biometric value calculator), the trigger event associated with a goal related to physiological data of the user (paragraph 19 discloses a biometric monitoring device that is configured to measure biometric data of a user to provide stress management for a user (goal of the user); paragraph 22 discloses by continuously monitoring one or more biometric values, the user can respond to the data received and modify behavior or activity to improve health and performance where the user can train his/her brain to reduce anxiety, stress, and the severity of ADD/ADHD);
generate, via the wearable device, the tactile or audible feedback to the user based at least in part on satisfaction of the trigger event (paragraph 31 discloses different feedback signals emitted to indicate changes in stress levels, where the duration, frequency, and magnitude of a vibration pattern is selected as the signal), wherein the tactile or audible feedback is configurable to train the user to achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user (paragraph 21 discloses the biometric monitoring device is used to lower the user's heart rate by facilitating biofeedback through vibrations transmitted to the user, where the biometric monitoring device can operate as a meditation and relaxation tool for users; paragraph 22 discloses the biometric monitoring device provides personal biofeedback customized for the user. The biofeedback allows the user to learn about the user's personal physiological state and physiological responses. By continuously monitoring one or more biometric value, the user can respond to the data received and modify behavior or activity to improve health and performance);
measure, via the wearable device, physiological data from the user based at least in part on generating the tactile or audible feedback (Figure 8; paragraph 21 discloses the biometric monitoring device is used to lower the user's heart rate by facilitating biofeedback through vibrations transmitted to the user; paragraph 31 discloses a first, second, or third feedback signal is emitted, where the different feedback signals can be emitted to indicate change in stress levels. After the feedback signal is emitted, a determination is made whether monitoring should continue. A number of different factors can be used at this point to determine if monitoring should be continued or the monitoring to end).
Vardas fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by English as cited:
determine whether the tactile or audible feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user based at least in part on the physiological data (paragraph 6 discloses a controller is operable in a training mode and a therapy mode. The controller is configured to condition the user in the training mode to elicit a desired physiological response from the user by activating the one or more haptic output devices; paragraph 157 discloses the training session may be initiated/stopped automatically in response to one or more physiological parameters of the user reaching, falling below, or exceeding certain thresholds; paragraph 166 discloses the haptic generators may be triggered to operate in a predetermined pattern in response to the therapy trigger being activated, i.e., via manual input or through measurements by the one or more sensors. Automatic triggering of therapy may cause the user to pause a moment when certain physiological parameters are rising or falling so that they become mindful of the situation, indicating the user has succeeded or was unsuccessful in reaching their goal);
selectively modify one or more parameters for generation of the tactile or audible feedback based at least in part on whether the tactile or audible feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user, the one or more parameters comprising a magnitude or volume of the tactile or audible feedback, a type of feedback, a threshold associated with the trigger event, or any combination thereof (paragraph 180 discloses haptic feedback (haptic output), or additionally/alternatively audible or visual feedback, is being provided to the user through haptic generators to alert the user that one or more of the inflatable bladders is about to be inflated to measure users blood pressure, and since the inflation of the inflatable bladders applies pressure on the user's wrist the user is alerted prior to inflation, which indicates a type of feedback, including tactile or audible);
generate, via the wearable device, additional tactile or audible feedback to the user in accordance with the one or more modified parameters (paragraph 180 discloses haptic feedback (haptic output), or additionally/alternatively audible or visual feedback, is being provided to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Vardas to further include wearable devices for providing therapy to a user and/or for measuring physiological parameters of the user as disclosed by English.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Vardas in this way by providing therapy to the user in response to changes in physiological parameters, e.g., to treat stress, anxiety, nausea, etc. There is also a need for alternative wearable devices. (English: paragraph 4).
Vardas and English fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Rus as cited:
a wearable device configured to be worn on a finger of a user (Figure 7; paragraph 52 discloses the wearable device is to be worn as a ring on the finger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Vardas to further include a wearable device and method for stress detection, emotion recognition, and emotion management that includes monitoring an emotional score of a user, the emotional score is computed based on measured biological signals of the user as disclosed by Rus.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Vardas in this way by monitoring biometric data of a user and enabling biofeedback indications in response to biometric data received in order to serve as an early warning system for the user and/or to guide the user through coping with the identified stress or emotions (Rus: paragraph 10).
Claim 2 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas and English fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Rus as cited:
wherein the one or more processors (paragraph 74 discloses a processor) are further configured to: receive, via the user device associated with the user, a user input indicating the goal related to the physiological data of the user, wherein identifying the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on receiving the user input (paragraph 40 discloses the intervention process can be tailored to the user based on the user’s specific conditions and characteristics, the intervention process that is directed by the device can be selected by the user via a system (e.g. a phone) that is communicatively coupled to the device; paragraph 70 discloses the user can select one of the action plans based his/her specific condition/conditions and emotional management goals).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Vardas, English, and Rus is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 5 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1. Vardas teaches a device wherein the goal related to the physiological data of the user comprises a goal to reduce stress (paragraph 19 discloses a biometric monitoring device that is configured to measure biometric data of a user to provide stress management for a user (goal of the user); paragraph 22 discloses by continuously monitoring one or more biometric values, the user can respond to the data received and modify behavior or activity to improve health and performance where the user can train his/her brain to reduce anxiety, stress, and the severity of ADD/ADHD), wherein the one or more processors (claim 1 discloses at least one processor having a memory unit residing on a central computer being coupled to the plurality of sensors, the at least one processor configured to receive the biometric data for a current interval and compare the biometric data with a reference value) are further configured to:
receive, at the application executing on the user device, additional physiological data collected from the user via the wearable device, wherein the additional physiological data comprises heart rate data, heart rate variability data, temperature data, or any combination thereof (paragraph 17 discloses In the event the heart rate variability of a user increases, the feedback mechanism can deliver a first signal to the user. In the event the heart rate variability decreases, the feedback mechanism can provide a second, different signal to the user, indicating receiving additional physiological data; paragraph 31 discloses if the heart rate variability has increased, a long, calming and massaging vibration can be emitted. Alternatively, if the heart rate variability has decreased, a short and abrupt vibration can be emitted. If the heart rate variability has remained constant (e.g., within a threshold), a shorter, calming and massaging vibration is emitted that is different from either of the other signals emitted); and
determine a stress metric associated with the user based at least in part on the heart rate data, the heart rate variability data, temperature data, or any combination thereof, the stress metric associated with a relative level of stress or relaxation experienced by the user, wherein identifying the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the stress metric satisfying a threshold stress level (paragraph 31 discloses a first, second, or third feedback signal is emitted, where the different feedback signals can be emitted to indicate change in stress levels).
Claim 6 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas and English fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Rus as cited:
wherein the goal related to the physiological data of the user comprises a goal to lower blood pressure, the wherein the one or more processors (paragraph 74 discloses a processor) are further configured to:
receive, at the application executing on the user device, additional physiological data collected from the user via the wearable device (paragraph 17 discloses In the event the heart rate variability of a user increases, the feedback mechanism can deliver a first signal to the user. In the event the heart rate variability decreases, the feedback mechanism can provide a second, different signal to the user, indicating receiving additional physiological data; paragraph 56 discloses by analyzing the PPG signal, various physiological biomarkers may be extracted, including blood oxygen saturation, blood pressure, heart rate, heart rate variability, and other cardiovascular parameters. The user's emotional score is derived as a function of the various measured parameters obtained through analysis of the PPG signal, and, optionally, additional parameters that may be measured using other sensors. In one embodiment, the radial basis function kernel is used to compute the emotional score from the various measured parameters (also called extracted features); paragraph 70 discloses the user can select one of the action plans based his/her specific condition/conditions and emotional management goals); and
determine a blood pressure metric associated with the user based at least in part on the additional physiological data, wherein identifying the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the blood pressure metric being greater than or equal to a threshold blood pressure metric (claim 2 discloses the biological signals include one or more of a heart rate, a variability in the heart rate, a blood oxygenation level, a galvanic skin response, skin temperature, a pulse rate, a blood pressure level).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Vardas, English, and Rus is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 9 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1. Vardas teaches a device wherein the tactile or audible feedback comprises one or more tactile vibrations, a temperature change of a surface of the wearable device, a pressure change exerted by the wearable device on a tissue of the user, or any combination thereof (paragraph 31 discloses different feedback signals emitted to indicate changes in stress levels, where the duration, frequency, and magnitude of a vibration pattern is selected as the signal).
Claim 10 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the wearable device of claim 1. Vardas teaches a device threshold wherein causing the wearable device to provide further comprises: causing the wearable device to provide the tactile or audible feedback to the user subconsciously in accordance with one or more characteristics of the tactile or audible feedback, wherein the one or more characteristics of the tactile or audible feedback comprise a magnitude, a volume, a cadence, or any combination thereof (paragraph 31 discloses different feedback signals emitted to indicate changes in stress levels, where the duration, frequency, and magnitude of a vibration pattern is selected as the signal).
Claim 11 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1. Vardas teaches wherein the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the physiological data of the user satisfying a threshold, and wherein the threshold is based at least in part on the goal related to physiological data of the user ((paragraph 19 discloses a biometric monitoring device that is configured to measure biometric data of a user to provide stress management for a user (goal of the user); paragraph 22 discloses by continuously monitoring one or more biometric values, the user can respond to the data received and modify behavior or activity to improve health and performance where the user can train his/her brain to reduce anxiety, stress, and the severity of ADD/ADHD); paragraph 31 discloses if the heart rate variability has increased, a long, calming and massaging vibration can be emitted. Alternatively, if the heart rate variability has decreased, a short and abrupt vibration can be emitted. If the heart rate variability has remained constant (e.g., within a threshold), a shorter, calming and massaging vibration is emitted that is different from either of the other signals emitted).
Claim 12 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1. Vardas teaches wherein the physiological data is collected from the user via the wearable device, and wherein the goal related to the physiological data of the user comprises a goal to reduce or manage stress, a goal to recognize or lower blood pressure, a goal to match a running or walking cadence to a heart rate, a goal to improve engagement or relaxation for other users, or any combination thereof (paragraph 19 discloses a biometric monitoring device that is configured to measure biometric data of a user to provide stress management for a user (goal of the user); paragraph 22 discloses by continuously monitoring one or more biometric values, the user can respond to the data received and modify behavior or activity to improve health and performance where the user can train his/her brain to reduce anxiety, stress, and the severity of ADD/ADHD)paragraph 31 discloses if the heart rate variability has increased, a long, calming and massaging vibration can be emitted. Alternatively, if the heart rate variability has decreased, a short and abrupt vibration can be emitted. If the heart rate variability has remained constant (e.g., within a threshold), a shorter, calming and massaging vibration is emitted that is different from either of the other signals emitted).
Claim 13 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas and English fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Rus as cited:
wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device (figure 7; paragraph 52 discloses the device can be worn as a ring on the finger).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Vardas, English, and Rus is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 3 – 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardas (U.S. Publication Number 2017/0224273 A1) in view of English (U.S. Publication Number 2024/0023820 A1) further in view of Rus et al., herein after Rus (WO 2022/144813 A1) further in view of Bender et al., herein after Bender (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0126670 A1).
Claim 3 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas, English, and Rus fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Bender as cited:
wherein the one or more processors (paragraph 128 discloses personal computer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputer systems, mainframe computer systems, and distributed cloud computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices) are further configured to: receive, at the application executing on the user device, additional physiological data collected from the user via the wearable device, wherein the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the additional physiological data (paragraph 27 discloses biometric data can be provided e.g. by one or more biometric sensor such as a camera sensor for use in sensing facial expressions of a user, a pulmonary sensor, such as a heart rate pulse or EKG sensor, and/or an EEG sensor for use in sensing brain activity, or another type of biometric sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Vardas, English, and Rus to further include stress level reduction using haptic feedback as disclosed by Bender.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Vardas, English, and Rus in this way to by providing haptic feedback to a caregiver which can improve the health and well-being of participant care-recipient users to allow caregiver to react in real time to reduce the care-recipient’s stress (Bender: paragraph 80).
Claim 4 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas, English, and Rus fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Bender as cited:
wherein the one or more processors (paragraph 128 discloses personal computer systems, server computer systems, thin clients, thick clients, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputer systems, mainframe computer systems, and distributed cloud computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices) are further configured to: receive, from one or more additional applications executing on the user device, additional data associated with environmental surroundings of the user, a schedule of the user, a navigational destination of the user, or any combination thereof, wherein the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the additional data (paragraph 29 discloses the stress history values for each user can be time-stamped, as well as geo-stamped indicating a location of a client computer device when generating biometric data used to determine biometric variance values and stress level classifications; paragraph 32 discloses Manager system can detect that a guidance session has commenced when a care-recipient user breaches a geofence such as geofence).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Vardas, English, Rus, and Bender is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardas (U.S. Publication Number 2017/0224273 A1) in view of English (U.S. Publication Number 2024/0023820 A1) further in view of Rus et al., herein after Rus (WO 2022/144813 A1) further in view of Moffat et al., herein after Moffat (U.S. Publication Number 2020/0367789 A1).
Claim 7 (Currently Amended). Vardas, English, and Rus teach the system of claim 1.
Vardas, English, and Rus fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Moffat as cited:
wherein the goal related to the physiological data of the user comprises a goal to match a running or walking cadence of the user to a heart rate of the user (Figure 9; paragraph 65 discloses heart rate sensors; paragraph 114 discloses specific goals or targets, such as target metrics, for a user to achieve, by a particular position or movement of the user's body, detected using movement sensor(s), and the associated determined metric), wherein the one or more processors (paragraph 97 discloses the computing device includes one or more processor(s)) are further configured to:
receive, at the application executing on the user device, additional physiological data collected from the user via the wearable device, wherein the additional physiological data comprises heart rate data and motion data (paragraph 140 discloses one or more metrics may be used to determine an efficiency based on another dimension or measurement. For example, work done, represented by a cadence metric, may be compared to energy output based on a user's heart rate. Thus, an efficient cadence for work done per energy output may be determined, and presented as feedback to a user);
determine the running or walking cadence of the user based at least in part on the motion data (paragraph 172 discloses cadence is useful in other activities including running. Rowing, or any other activity with a cyclic or periodic quality to the movement);
determining the heart rate of the user based at least in part on the heart rate data (paragraph 121 discloses determining a heart rate and heartbeat metric based at least in part on sensor data); and
determine that a difference between the heart rate and the running or walking cadence satisfies a threshold difference, wherein identifying the satisfaction of the trigger event is based at least in part on the difference satisfying the threshold difference (paragraph 140 discloses one or more metrics may be used to determine an efficiency based on another dimension or measurement. For example, work done, represented by a cadence metric, may be compared to energy output based on a user's heart rate. Thus, an efficient cadence for work done per energy output may be determined, and presented as feedback to a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Vardas, English, and Rus to further include a wearable system for determining at least one movement property via the use of movement sensors as disclosed by Moffat.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Vardas, English, and Rus in this way to access one or more machine learning components or processes for further improving the interaction of the individual with the one or more biofeedback computer systems by updating automatically the brainwave interaction profiles based on detecting one or more defined interactions between the individual and the one or more of the biofeedback computer systems (Moffat: paragraph 83).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
35 USC 101 Rejections
The Applicant argues independent claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception, and are not directed to organizing human activity. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that the PEG (Patent Eligibility Guidelines) of January 2019 recite that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of the collection of physiological data and providing feedback regarding the acquired data. The present claims recite identifying a satisfaction of a trigger event for providing feedback to a user, the trigger event associated with a goal related to physiological data of the user; wherein the feedback trains the user to achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user; monitoring physiological data collected from the user to provide feedback; determining whether the feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user based at least in part on the physiological data; selectively modifying one or more parameters of the feedback based on whether the tactile or audible feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user; and provide additional feedback to the user in accordance with the one or more modified parameters. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
35 USC 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues the cited references do not teach “selectively modify[ing] one or more parameters for generation of the tactile or audible feedback based at least in part on whether the tactile or audible feedback was successful or unsuccessful in helping the user achieve the goal related to the physiological data of the user” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits English discloses the wearable device may operate in multiple modes in which haptic therapy, neuromodulation therapy, heat therapy, etc. are provided and/or in which one or more physiological parameters are measured/monitored. In some versions, the wearable device is used to treat the user's anxiety or to reduce the user's stress. This may include conditioning the user in a training mode to elicit a desired physiological response from the user, such as a lowered heart rate, a raised HRV, a lowered skin temperature, lowered blood pressure, lowered EEG signals, lowered ECG signals, a raised blood oxygen level, a raised glucose level, combinations thereof, or the like which indicates the user has succeeded or was unsuccessful in reaching their goal (paragraph 156). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
KRISTINE K. RAPILLO
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/KRISTINE K RAPILLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights