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 .
Status of Claims
This office action for the 18/645524 application is in response to the communications filed October 28, 2025.
Claims 1, 5, 19, 26, 27, 33, 36 and 38 were amended October 28, 2025.
Claims 2, 4, 31, 35 and 37 were cancelled October 28, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 24-29, 32-34, 36, 38 and 39 are currently pending and considered below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, 24-29, 32-34, 36, 38 and 39 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.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of a method of increasing neuro-connectivity in an individual affected by a neuro-degenerative disease, neurologic disorder, psychological disorder, or a combination thereof, said method comprising: generating a therapy intervention plan based on the data; implementing the therapy intervention plan for the individual, wherein the therapy intervention plan comprises at least one intervention, configured for the interaction of the individual, comprising: sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof, wherein the therapy intervention plan further comprises monitoring responses of the individual during implementation of the therapy intervention plan and further modifying at least one sensory modality input based on the responses; and adapting the therapy intervention plan based on the responses of the individual. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“digital” and “carried out at least partially on the personal electronic device” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0080] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware that implements the steps of the abstract idea amount to nothing more than a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“providing a personal electronic device to receive data related to the individual” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“providing a personal electronic device to receive data related to the individual” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said … intervention comprises: at least one psychological intervention, at least one cognitive intervention, at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the data is selected from: personal, demographic, medical, biomarker information, medicinal agent intake and dosage regimen, geographic, environmental, lifestyle, health and wellbeing, biometric, behavioral, digital intervention related data, goal setting, medical considerations, health and wellbeing, preferences, availability, time constraints, scheduling, individual's strengths and weaknesses, cultural considerations, communication channel preference, feedback from said individual, feedback from healthcare provider, or a combination thereof; and further comprising analyzing said data … to adapt said …therapy intervention plan.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“by means of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), statistical modeling, or a combination thereof” and “digital” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said analyzing determines a degree of improvement to be achieved by the individual carrying out said … therapy intervention plan.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital”
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 3 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one psychological intervention is selected from: guided imagery, psychoeducation, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, stress and anxiety management training, mindfulness-based interventions, body scanning training, sleep hygiene, fatigue training, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), psychodynamic therapy, solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT), narrative therapy, pain therapy, addiction therapy, gestalt therapy, behavioral activation therapy, … or a combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“telepsychiatry and teletherapy” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 10,
Claim 10 depends from claim 3 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 10 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one cognitive intervention is selected from: navigation in a maze, spatial navigation, magic-7 training, memory enhancement techniques, attention training, problem-solving, sonification exercise, data visualization, geometric puzzles, shape and pattern matching, visual perception tasks, spatial reasoning games, face detection training, drawing game, focus training, reading training, or any combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 3 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one physical intervention is selected from: physiotherapy, voice therapy, speech therapy, swallow therapy, breathing training, saliva and drooling therapy, chewing therapy, facial expression training, tremor management, mobility training, freezing and rigidity exercises, tapping training, limb agility exercises, volume-duration-pitch training, training for freezing of gait, motor function therapy, dance therapy, handwriting training, balance exercises, postural stability training, strength training, stretching exercises, coordination training, metronome training, fine motor skills training, or a combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 12,
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 12 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said maze is selected from: Hebb-Williams maze, Morris water maze, Barnes maze, radial arm maze, T-maze and elevated plus maze.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 13,
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 13 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said sensory inhibition comprises the at least partial reduction of at least one sensory modality input.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 15,
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 15 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said sensory substitution comprises the at least partial replacement of at least one sensory modality input with at least one other sensory modality input.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 16,
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 16 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least partial replacement of at least one sensory modality input with at least one other sensory modality input is selected from: visual to auditory and/or tactile; auditory to visual and/or tactile; and tactile to visual and/or auditory.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 17,
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 17 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said sensory integration comprises the at least partial combination of at least two sensory modality inputs.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 19,
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 19 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said digital intervention comprises said individual interacting with said personal electronic device using any of the following means selected from: touch gesture, motion gesture, voice commands, text input, camera and media interaction, sensor-based interactions, or a combination thereof.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“wherein said digital intervention comprises said individual interacting with said personal electronic device using any of the following means selected from: touch gesture, motion gesture, voice commands, text input, camera and media interaction, sensor-based interactions, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“wherein said digital intervention comprises said individual interacting with said personal electronic device using any of the following means selected from: touch gesture, motion gesture, voice commands, text input, camera and media interaction, sensor-based interactions, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 24,
Claim 24 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 24 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one digital intervention is performed in any of the following formats: instructional video, interactive video comprising input and feedback from the individual, game, instructional prompts, question and answer survey with feedback, virtual reality, augmented reality, or a combination thereof.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“wherein said at least one digital intervention is performed in any of the following formats: instructional video, interactive video comprising input and feedback from the individual, game, instructional prompts, question and answer survey with feedback, virtual reality, augmented reality, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“wherein said at least one digital intervention is performed in any of the following formats: instructional video, interactive video comprising input and feedback from the individual, game, instructional prompts, question and answer survey with feedback, virtual reality, augmented reality, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 25,
Claim 25 depends from claim 3 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 25 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one psychological intervention, said at least one cognitive intervention, said at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof, spans a duration ranging from 1 second to 60 minutes.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 26,
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 26 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said … therapy intervention plan is carried out over the course of between 1 day to 10 years.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 27,
Claim 27 depends from claim 5 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 27 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the adapting comprises: receiving said data; receiving updated data in response to said at least one psychological intervention, said at least one cognitive intervention, said at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof; analyzing said data and said updated data … and generating an updated … therapy intervention plan for said individual in response to the analyzing of said updated data.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital” and “by means of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), or statistical modeling” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 28,
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 28 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said adaptation comprises a change in any of the following selected from: type of intervention, intervention sequence, frequency of intervention, intensity of intervention, length of intervention, difficulty of intervention, sensory modality inputs used, level of interaction, or a combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 29,
Claim 29 depends from claim 4 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 29 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“further comprising at least one additional device selected from: health monitoring system, medical device, haptic device, external speakers, headphones, virtual reality set, augmented reality glasses/devices, biofeedback sensors, wearable activity trackers, smartphone, personal computational device, smart speakers, voice assistants, motion tracking sensor, virtual assistant systems, internet hub, or a combination thereof;” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein said at least one additional device is configured to transfer data between said individual, said personal electronic device, or a combination thereof, and wherein said at least one additional device is configured to provide at least one of: real-time feedback to the individual based on gathered data and interaction, measuring a health parameter, output a signal to the individual, customize the digital therapy intervention plan in real time, monitor the individual's engagement and adherence to therapy protocols, provide remote monitoring, cross-device cloud syncing and data sharing, or a combination thereof.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“wherein said at least one additional device is configured to transfer data between said individual, said personal electronic device, or a combination thereof, and wherein said at least one additional device is configured to provide at least one of: real-time feedback to the individual based on gathered data and interaction, measuring a health parameter, output a signal to the individual, customize the digital therapy intervention plan in real time, monitor the individual's engagement and adherence to therapy protocols, provide remote monitoring, cross-device cloud syncing and data sharing, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“wherein said at least one additional device is configured to transfer data between said individual, said personal electronic device, or a combination thereof, and wherein said at least one additional device is configured to provide at least one of: real-time feedback to the individual based on gathered data and interaction, measuring a health parameter, output a signal to the individual, customize the digital therapy intervention plan in real time, monitor the individual's engagement and adherence to therapy protocols, provide remote monitoring, cross-device cloud syncing and data sharing, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 32,
Claim 32 depends from claim 29 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 32 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said personal electronic device, said at least one additional device, or a combination thereof, are configured to provide sensory modality inputs to carry out the sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof.” introduces additional elements that is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more:
Step 2A Prong 2: In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“wherein said personal electronic device, said at least one additional device, or a combination thereof, are configured to provide sensory modality inputs to carry out the sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Step 2B: As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“wherein said personal electronic device, said at least one additional device, or a combination thereof, are configured to provide sensory modality inputs to carry out the sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof.” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 33,
Claim 33 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 33 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“for treating, preventing, or alleviating symptoms in the individual.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 34,
Claim 34 depends from claim 33 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 34 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said neuro-degenerative disease is selected from: Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), Lewy body dementia (LBD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), multiple system atrophy (MSA), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), Huntington's disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Wilson's disease.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 36,
Claim 36 depends from claim 33 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 36 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said neurologic disorder is selected from: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), sleep disorders, migraine and headache disorders, neuropathies, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and cerebrovascular diseases.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 38,
Claim 38 depends from claim 33 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 38 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said psychological disorder is selected from: depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), eating disorders, substance use disorder, sleep disorders, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), personality disorders, schizophrenia, and dissociative disorders.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 39,
Claim 39 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 39 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said at least one … intervention is administered together with a conditioning stimulus selected from: visual, auditory, tactile, or a combination thereof.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“digital” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19, 24-29, 32-34, 36, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slepian et al. (US 2018/0292888; herein referred to as Slepian).
As per claim 1,
Slepian discloses method of increasing neuro-connectivity in an individual affected by a neuro-degenerative disease, neurologic disorder, psychological disorder, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0023] of Slepian. The teaching describes associating and learning something new via sensory substitution, which is construed to involve at least one neuron connection in an individual with Anorexia Nervosa.)
Slepian further discloses providing a personal electronic device to receive data related to the individual:
(Paragraph [0020] of Slepian. The teaching describes exemplary virtual reality system 100 for improving clinical outcomes. System 100 includes a virtual environment generator 102 and an immersive virtual environment 106. Virtual environment 106 may be composed of a physically contained entity or be an entity defined by the proximate items and constituents bought into play to create the virtual effect. Virtual environment 106 may include one or more of a virtual reality dome, virtual reality goggles, multiple media displays, helmets, wearable displays or projection means, sensory duplicators or emulators—for all senses including sight, sound, smell, taste, temperature and the like, haptic (tactile) devices, feedback sensors, and so on.)
generating a digital therapy intervention plan based on the data; implementing the digital therapy intervention plan for the individual, carried out at least partially on the personal electronic device, wherein the digital therapy intervention plan comprises at least one digital intervention, configured for the interaction of the individual, comprising: sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof, wherein the digital therapy intervention plan further comprises monitoring responses of the individual during implementation of the digital therapy intervention plan and further modifying at least one sensory modality input based on the responses and adapting the digital therapy intervention plan based on the responses of the individual.
(Paragraphs [0023] and [0031] of Slepian. The teaching describes associating and learning something new via sensory substitution, which is construed to involve at least one neuron connection in an individual with Anorexia Nervosa. For example, a disease game (e.g., game 130, described below) may improve adherence to therapy or a change in lifestyle by allowing the player (i.e., patient 108) to experience this and may associate this with one or more of a positive sound, a pleasant vision, and a pleasurable smell, thereby substituting one type of somaticized response for an alternative sensory feeling. Operator 405 monitors patient 108 during the therapy session and receives a real-time status from system 100 (e.g., via interface 404) as to progress of the therapy session and provides real-time input and manipulation of system 100 to further potentiate the therapy effect.)
As per claim 3,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian wherein said digital intervention comprises: at least one psychological intervention, at least one cognitive intervention, at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0071] of Slepian. The teaching describes that treatment model 406 may cause controller 402 to control VITT driver 408 to drive virtual imager 420 to first show images and effects of non-compliance by patient 108 after six months, where patient 108 is unable to walk far without getting out of breath, and then show images and effects of non-compliance by patient 108 after one year, where patient 108 becomes immobile, has swelling legs simulated by pressure applied to the patient's legs during the experience by actuators 424 driven by PEGD driver 410, and so on. This is construed as a type of physical intervention therapy.)
As per claim 5,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Slepian further discloses wherein the data is selected from: personal, demographic, medical, biomarker information, medicinal agent intake and dosage regimen, geographic, environmental, lifestyle, health and wellbeing, biometric, behavioral, digital intervention related data, goal setting, medical considerations, health and wellbeing, preferences, availability, time constraints, scheduling, individual's strengths and weaknesses, cultural considerations, communication channel preference, feedback from said individual, feedback from healthcare provider, or a combination thereof; and further comprising analyzing said data by means of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), statistical modeling, or a combination thereof, to adapt said digital therapy intervention plan:
(Paragraphs [0040] and [0061] of Slepian. The teaching describes that monitoring data and weight data is used by the system in conjunction with a learning algorithm on a computer that uses a machine learning model to learn from therapy feedback and adjusts the treatment model based on this data.)
As per claim 7,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 5.
Slepian further discloses wherein said analyzing determines a degree of improvement to be achieved by the individual carrying out said digital therapy intervention plan:
(Paragraph [0007] of Slepian. The teaching describes that through thought, mulling over, cycling in the mind's eye, the individual may envision the situation, having greater impact and imprinting on them. Beyond this, even greater somatic recognition and sensation, i.e., feeling it, experiencing it in the body so that the individual “really gets it,” will lead to a better outcome. For the purposes of further discussion here this may be termed “therapeutic somatization.” This is distinct from pathologic somatization, which is a psychiatric disorder that goes beyond where experiences and thoughts are converted to true physical maladies signs and symptoms. For example, when someone sees a positive potential outcome with improvement in a condition, if they really “get it” they may go on to feel energized or strong, converting a mental thought into a physical feeling.)
As per claim 9,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least one psychological intervention is selected from: guided imagery, psychoeducation, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, stress and anxiety management training, mindfulness-based interventions, body scanning training, sleep hygiene, fatigue training, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), psychodynamic therapy, solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT), narrative therapy, pain therapy, addiction therapy, gestalt therapy, behavioral activation therapy, telepsychiatry and teletherapy or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0023] of Slepian. The teaching describes educating an anorexic patient using a game setting which corresponds to psychoeducation)
As per claim 10,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Slepian wherein said at least one cognitive intervention is selected from: navigation in a maze, spatial navigation, magic-7 training, memory enhancement techniques, attention training, problem-solving, sonification exercise, data visualization, geometric puzzles, shape and pattern matching, visual perception tasks, spatial reasoning games, face detection training, drawing game, focus training, reading training, or any combination thereof.:
(Paragraph [0052] of Slepian. The teaching describes that the system 100 may be considered “senso-ceutical.” System 100 operates to provide cognitive recognition of a disease state (i.e., a condition having a clinical reality) by patient 108. That is, by immersing patient 108 within virtual environment 106, patient 108 is placed into an enhanced state of “getting it,” since the provided immersive of “being in one's face” experience allows patient 108 to “close the loop.” By closing the loop, patient 108 recognizes the disease, receives enhanced understanding and imprinting of the disease, and sensory elements may be further utilized as an effective therapy to lead to somatic processing with neuro hormonal, hormonal or neuroendocrine responses, and/or immunomodulation, and/or metabolic alteration which then invokes a therapeutic effect. This cognitive recognition is construed as a form of memory enhancement)
As per claim 11,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least one physical intervention is selected from: physiotherapy, voice therapy, speech therapy, swallow therapy, breathing training, saliva and drooling therapy, chewing therapy, facial expression training, tremor management, mobility training, freezing and rigidity exercises, tapping training, limb agility exercises, volume-duration-pitch training, training for freezing of gait, motor function therapy, dance therapy, handwriting training, balance exercises, postural stability training, strength training, stretching exercises, coordination training, metronome training, fine motor skills training, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0071] of Slepian. The teaching describes that treatment model 406 may cause controller 402 to control VITT driver 408 to drive virtual imager 420 to first show images and effects of non-compliance by patient 108 after six months, where patient 108 is unable to walk far without getting out of breath, and then show images and effects of non-compliance by patient 108 after one year, where patient 108 becomes immobile, has swelling legs simulated by pressure applied to the patient's legs during the experience by actuators 424 driven by PEGD driver 410, and so on. This is construed as a type of motor function therapy.)
As per claim 13,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said sensory inhibition comprises the at least partial reduction of at least one sensory modality input:
(Paragraph [0039] of Slepian. The teaching describes a virtual reality environment, in which at least some visual information from the actual environment is, by definition, reduced in order to display a virtual surrounding.)
As per claim 15,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said sensory substitution comprises the at least partial replacement of at least one sensory modality input with at least one other sensory modality input:
(Paragraph [0039] of Slepian. The teaching describes a virtual reality environment, in which at least some visual information from the actual environment is, by definition, reduced in order to display a virtual surrounding. The addition of this virtual environment is at least a partial visual replacement of what was suppressed.)
As per claim 16,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 15.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least partial replacement of at least one sensory modality input with at least one other sensory modality input is selected from: visual to auditory and/or tactile; auditory to visual and/or tactile; and tactile to visual and/or auditory:
(Paragraph [0039] of Slepian. The teaching describes a virtual reality environment, in which at least some visual information from the actual environment is, by definition, reduced in order to display a virtual surrounding. The addition of this virtual environment is at least a partial visual replacement of what was suppressed.)
As per claim 17,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said sensory integration comprises the at least partial combination of at least two sensory modality inputs:
(Paragraph [0024] of Slepian. The teaching describes a combination of a visual headset and audio headphones to facilitate the virtual reality game that drives sensory substitution.)
As per claim 19,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said digital intervention comprises said individual interacting with said personal electronic device using any of the following means selected from: touch gesture, motion gesture, voice commands, text input, camera and media interaction, sensor-based interactions, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0027] of Slepian. The teaching describes that feedback sensors are used for interactions win the virtual reality environment.)
As per claim 24,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least one digital intervention is performed in any of the following formats: instructional video, interactive video comprising input and feedback from the individual, game, instructional prompts, question and answer survey with feedback, virtual reality, augmented reality, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0024] of Slepian. The teaching describes a combination of a visual headset and audio headphones to facilitate the virtual reality game that drives sensory substitution.)
As per claim 25,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least one psychological intervention, said at least one cognitive intervention, said at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof, spans a duration ranging from 1 second to 60 minutes:
(Paragraph [0031] of Slepian. The teaching describes that operator 405 monitors patient 108 during the therapy session and receives a real-time status from system 100 (e.g., via interface 404) as to progress of the therapy session and provides real-time input and manipulation of system 100 to further potentiate the therapy effect. This means that the therapy is at least 1 second. The Examiner notes that the end limit of 60 minutes is not really a limit as the word “spans” does not preclude time exceeding 60 minutes.)
As per claim 26,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said digital therapy intervention plan is carried out over the course of between 1 day to 10 years:
(Paragraph [0063] of Slepian. The teaching describes that the method 500 determines the patient's response to treatment over time and determines the treatment effectiveness. In one example of step 518, controller 402 determines effectiveness of one or both of medical treatment and the virtual reality treatment based upon sensed condition of patient 108 and health care data of patient 108 based upon one or more treatments over time. This is construed to have therapy being delivered over several days to months to years)
As per claim 27,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 5.
Slepian further discloses wherein the adapting comprises: receiving said data; receiving updated data in response to said at least one psychological intervention, said at least one cognitive intervention, said at least one physical intervention, or a combination thereof; analyzing said data and said updated data by means of machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), or statistical modeling; and generating an updated digital therapy intervention plan for said individual in response to the analyzing of said updated data:
(Paragraph [0061] of Slepian. The teaching describes sensing patient conditions, receiving therapy feedback, which involves therapy and treatment, using a machine learning algorithm to learn from the therapy feedback and adjust the treatment model)
As per claim 28,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 27.
Slepian further discloses wherein said adaptation comprises a change in any of the following selected from: type of intervention, intervention sequence, frequency of intervention, intensity of intervention, length of intervention, difficulty of intervention, sensory modality inputs used, level of interaction, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0061] of Slepian. The teaching describes sensing patient conditions, receiving therapy feedback, which involves therapy and treatment, using a machine learning algorithm to learn from the therapy feedback and adjust the treatment model. The updates are provided from the sensor analyzing which constitutes the sensory modality inputs used.)
As per claim 29,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 4.
Slepian further discloses further comprising at least one additional device selected from: health monitoring system, medical device, haptic device, external speakers, headphones, virtual reality set, augmented reality glasses/devices, biofeedback sensors, wearable activity trackers, smartphone, personal computational device, smart speakers, voice assistants, motion tracking sensor, virtual assistant systems, internet hub, or a combination thereof; wherein said at least one additional device is configured to transfer data between said individual, said personal electronic device, or a combination thereof, and wherein said at least one additional device is configured to provide at least one of: real-time feedback to the individual based on gathered data and interaction, measuring a health parameter, output a signal to the individual, customize the digital therapy intervention plan in real time, monitor the individual's engagement and adherence to therapy protocols, provide remote monitoring, cross-device cloud syncing and data sharing, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0031] of Slepian. The teaching describes that operator 405 monitors patient 108 during the therapy session and receives a real-time status from system 100 (e.g., via interface 404) as to progress of the therapy session and provides real-time input and manipulation of system 100 to further potentiate the therapy effect.)
(Paragraph [0039] of Slepian. The teaching describes a virtual reality environment, in which at least some visual information from the actual environment is, by definition, reduced in order to display a virtual surrounding.)
As per claim 32,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 29.
Slepian further discloses wherein said personal electronic device, said at least one additional device, or a combination thereof, are configured to provide sensory modality inputs to carry out the sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0031] of Slepian. The teaching describes that operator 405 monitors patient 108 during the therapy session and receives a real-time status from system 100 (e.g., via interface 404) as to progress of the therapy session and provides real-time input and manipulation of system 100 to further potentiate the therapy effect.)
(Paragraph [0039] of Slepian. The teaching describes a virtual reality environment, in which at least some visual information from the actual environment is, by definition, reduced in order to display a virtual surrounding.)
As per claim 33,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses for treating, preventing, or alleviating symptoms in the individual:
(Paragraph [0019] of Slepian. The teaching describes that a doctor may apply medical treatment to a patient for diseases and conditions such as a disease selected from the groups including: Cardiovascular disease (Coronary Artery Disease/Angina, Heart Failure, Valvular Disease, and Arrhythmias including Atrial Fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia), Pericardial disease; Pulmonary disease including Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Interstitial Lung Disease, Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Pneumonia, Pleuritis, and Lung cancer, Gastrointestinal diseases including Peptic Ulcer Disease, Gastro esophageal Reflux Disease, Irritable Bowel Disease, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Malabsorption Syndromes, Bacterial Overgrowth, celiac disease, gastrointestinal cancers, Hepatitis, Pancreatitis (including Acute and Chronic forms), and Gallbladder disease; Hematological and oncological diseases including Anemia, Leukemia and lymphoma, Thrombocytopenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Polycythemia, Cancers including but not limited to breast, Lung, Prostate, Pancreas, Liver, Kidney, Brain, Bone, Adrenal, Skin, and Melanoma; Neurological diseases including Chronic Pain Syndromes, Neuralgias, Mononeuritis multiplex, Neurocognitive decline, Dementias, Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Post CVA syndromes, Parkinson's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and Myasthenia; Rheumatologicial diseases including Chronic arthritis, Fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease, Rheumatoid, Systemic Lupus Erythromatosis, Sjogren's disease, Reiters, scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease, and Wegners Granulomatosis; Endocrine diseases including -Hypothyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Diabetes Mellitus, Cushing's disease, Adrenal Insufficiency, Prolactinoma, Hypogonadism, and Sex steroid disorders; Genitourinary disorders including renal stones, renal failure, polycystic kidney disease, renal carcinoma, ureteral diseases and obstruction, bladder cancer, urethral strictures, testicular cancer, prostatism/BPH, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction; Dermatological disorders including, eczema, psoriasis, erythemas—nodosum, multiforme, ptyriasis, malignancies, pemphigus, pemphigoid, dermatophytosis, fungal infections, and bullous diseases; Gynecological disorders including, ovarian carcinoma, tubo-ovarian disorders, uterine carcinoma, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and menstrual cramps; and Psychological disorders including Anorexia Nervosa, Neuroses, Depression, Mania, Cyclothymic behavior, Panic Disorder, Eating Disorders, Psychoses, and other psychiatric disorders, such as depression.)
As per claim 34,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Slepian further discloses wherein said neuro-degenerative disease is selected from: Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), Lewy body dementia (LBD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), multiple system atrophy (MSA), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), Huntington's disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Wilson's disease:
(Paragraph [0019] of Slepian. The teaching describes that a doctor may apply medical treatment to a patient for diseases and conditions such as a disease selected from the groups including: Cardiovascular disease (Coronary Artery Disease/Angina, Heart Failure, Valvular Disease, and Arrhythmias including Atrial Fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia), Pericardial disease; Pulmonary disease including Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Interstitial Lung Disease, Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Pneumonia, Pleuritis, and Lung cancer, Gastrointestinal diseases including Peptic Ulcer Disease, Gastro esophageal Reflux Disease, Irritable Bowel Disease, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Malabsorption Syndromes, Bacterial Overgrowth, celiac disease, gastrointestinal cancers, Hepatitis, Pancreatitis (including Acute and Chronic forms), and Gallbladder disease; Hematological and oncological diseases including Anemia, Leukemia and lymphoma, Thrombocytopenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Polycythemia, Cancers including but not limited to breast, Lung, Prostate, Pancreas, Liver, Kidney, Brain, Bone, Adrenal, Skin, and Melanoma; Neurological diseases including Chronic Pain Syndromes, Neuralgias, Mononeuritis multiplex, Neurocognitive decline, Dementias, Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Post CVA syndromes, Parkinson's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and Myasthenia; Rheumatologicial diseases including Chronic arthritis, Fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease, Rheumatoid, Systemic Lupus Erythromatosis, Sjogren's disease, Reiters, scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease, and Wegners Granulomatosis; Endocrine diseases including -Hypothyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Diabetes Mellitus, Cushing's disease, Adrenal Insufficiency, Prolactinoma, Hypogonadism, and Sex steroid disorders; Genitourinary disorders including renal stones, renal failure, polycystic kidney disease, renal carcinoma, ureteral diseases and obstruction, bladder cancer, urethral strictures, testicular cancer, prostatism/BPH, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction; Dermatological disorders including, eczema, psoriasis, erythemas—nodosum, multiforme, ptyriasis, malignancies, pemphigus, pemphigoid, dermatophytosis, fungal infections, and bullous diseases; Gynecological disorders including, ovarian carcinoma, tubo-ovarian disorders, uterine carcinoma, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and menstrual cramps; and Psychological disorders including Anorexia Nervosa, Neuroses, Depression, Mania, Cyclothymic behavior, Panic Disorder, Eating Disorders, Psychoses, and other psychiatric disorders, such as depression.)
As per claim 36,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Slepian further discloses wherein said neurologic disorder is selected from: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), sleep disorders, migraine and headache disorders, neuropathies, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and cerebrovascular diseases:
(Paragraph [0019] of Slepian. The teaching describes that a doctor may apply medical treatment to a patient for diseases and conditions such as a disease selected from the groups including: Cardiovascular disease (Coronary Artery Disease/Angina, Heart Failure, Valvular Disease, and Arrhythmias including Atrial Fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia), Pericardial disease; Pulmonary disease including Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Interstitial Lung Disease, Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Pneumonia, Pleuritis, and Lung cancer, Gastrointestinal diseases including Peptic Ulcer Disease, Gastro esophageal Reflux Disease, Irritable Bowel Disease, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Malabsorption Syndromes, Bacterial Overgrowth, celiac disease, gastrointestinal cancers, Hepatitis, Pancreatitis (including Acute and Chronic forms), and Gallbladder disease; Hematological and oncological diseases including Anemia, Leukemia and lymphoma, Thrombocytopenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Polycythemia, Cancers including but not limited to breast, Lung, Prostate, Pancreas, Liver, Kidney, Brain, Bone, Adrenal, Skin, and Melanoma; Neurological diseases including Chronic Pain Syndromes, Neuralgias, Mononeuritis multiplex, Neurocognitive decline, Dementias, Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Post CVA syndromes, Parkinson's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and Myasthenia; Rheumatologicial diseases including Chronic arthritis, Fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease, Rheumatoid, Systemic Lupus Erythromatosis, Sjogren's disease, Reiters, scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease, and Wegners Granulomatosis; Endocrine diseases including -Hypothyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Diabetes Mellitus, Cushing's disease, Adrenal Insufficiency, Prolactinoma, Hypogonadism, and Sex steroid disorders; Genitourinary disorders including renal stones, renal failure, polycystic kidney disease, renal carcinoma, ureteral diseases and obstruction, bladder cancer, urethral strictures, testicular cancer, prostatism/BPH, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction; Dermatological disorders including, eczema, psoriasis, erythemas—nodosum, multiforme, ptyriasis, malignancies, pemphigus, pemphigoid, dermatophytosis, fungal infections, and bullous diseases; Gynecological disorders including, ovarian carcinoma, tubo-ovarian disorders, uterine carcinoma, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and menstrual cramps; and Psychological disorders including Anorexia Nervosa, Neuroses, Depression, Mania, Cyclothymic behavior, Panic Disorder, Eating Disorders, Psychoses, and other psychiatric disorders, such as depression.)
As per claim 38,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 33.
Slepian further discloses wherein said psychological disorder is selected from: depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), eating disorders, substance use disorder, sleep disorders, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), personality disorders, schizophrenia, and dissociative disorders:
(Paragraph [0019] of Slepian. The teaching describes that a doctor may apply medical treatment to a patient for diseases and conditions such as a disease selected from the groups including: Cardiovascular disease (Coronary Artery Disease/Angina, Heart Failure, Valvular Disease, and Arrhythmias including Atrial Fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia and ventricular tachycardia), Pericardial disease; Pulmonary disease including Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Interstitial Lung Disease, Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Pneumonia, Pleuritis, and Lung cancer, Gastrointestinal diseases including Peptic Ulcer Disease, Gastro esophageal Reflux Disease, Irritable Bowel Disease, Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Malabsorption Syndromes, Bacterial Overgrowth, celiac disease, gastrointestinal cancers, Hepatitis, Pancreatitis (including Acute and Chronic forms), and Gallbladder disease; Hematological and oncological diseases including Anemia, Leukemia and lymphoma, Thrombocytopenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Polycythemia, Cancers including but not limited to breast, Lung, Prostate, Pancreas, Liver, Kidney, Brain, Bone, Adrenal, Skin, and Melanoma; Neurological diseases including Chronic Pain Syndromes, Neuralgias, Mononeuritis multiplex, Neurocognitive decline, Dementias, Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Post CVA syndromes, Parkinson's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and Myasthenia; Rheumatologicial diseases including Chronic arthritis, Fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease, Rheumatoid, Systemic Lupus Erythromatosis, Sjogren's disease, Reiters, scleroderma, mixed connective tissue disease, and Wegners Granulomatosis; Endocrine diseases including -Hypothyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Diabetes Mellitus, Cushing's disease, Adrenal Insufficiency, Prolactinoma, Hypogonadism, and Sex steroid disorders; Genitourinary disorders including renal stones, renal failure, polycystic kidney disease, renal carcinoma, ureteral diseases and obstruction, bladder cancer, urethral strictures, testicular cancer, prostatism/BPH, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction; Dermatological disorders including, eczema, psoriasis, erythemas—nodosum, multiforme, ptyriasis, malignancies, pemphigus, pemphigoid, dermatophytosis, fungal infections, and bullous diseases; Gynecological disorders including, ovarian carcinoma, tubo-ovarian disorders, uterine carcinoma, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and menstrual cramps; and Psychological disorders including Anorexia Nervosa, Neuroses, Depression, Mania, Cyclothymic behavior, Panic Disorder, Eating Disorders, Psychoses, and other psychiatric disorders, such as depression.)
As per claim 39,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Slepian further discloses wherein said at least one digital intervention is administered together with a conditioning stimulus selected from: visual, auditory, tactile, or a combination thereof:
(Paragraph [0024] of Slepian. The teaching describes a combination of a visual headset and audio headphones to facilitate the virtual reality game that drives sensory substitution.)
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slepian in view of Fried et al. (US 2017/0113046; herein referred to as Fried).
As per claim 12,
Slepian discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Slepian does not explicitly teach wherein said maze is selected from: Hebb-Williams maze, Morris water maze, Barnes maze, radial arm maze, T-maze and elevated plus maze.
However, Slepian teaches wherein a maze is selected from: Hebb-Williams maze, Morris water maze, Barnes maze, radial arm maze, T-maze and elevated plus maze for the purpose of improved cognitive therapy:
(Paragraph [0100] of Fried. The teaching describes using a classic test of complex declarative memory is the Morris Water maze task. However, it is rather difficult to do electrophysiology during this swim task. Besides, this task is aversive, involving escape to a platform, whereas a majority of memory tasks we undertake are appetitive, carried out to obtain food, water or other rewards. In some implementations, a non-invasive virtual reality system that is also multisensory and multimodal is used for testing rodents (e.g., the virtual reality apparatus and environment 600, FIG. 6). In this multisensory virtual reality system rats have to remember to go to an unmarked spatial location, defined by distal audio-visual cues, to obtain sugar reward. While most research has focused on uni-modal behavioral measures, such as navigational accuracy, to understand complex behavior it is necessary to have multimodal behavioral assay and relate it to neural activity pattern.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to add to the virtual reality therapy environment of Slepian, the maze work functions of Fried. Paragraph [0113] of Fried teaches that the use of these mazes in conjunction with a virtual reality environment provides therapeutic effects for patient suffering from neural or psychological impairments. One of ordinary skill in the art in possession of Slepian would have looked to Fried to achieve such similar improvement for its own patient therapies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have added to the teaching of Slepian, the teaching of Fried based on this incentive without yielding unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 are persuasive. The cancellation of the rejected claim obviates the Examiner’s previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the steps of the pending claims cannot be understood to be “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because the claimed steps are being implemented on a personal electronic device to provide digital therapy to a subject.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Intervening technology does not preclude an abstract idea from being recited by a claim. A human person is more than capable of performing therapy for a subject. This is the basis of all medicine going back thousands of years. Connecting a particular therapy to a digital environment, at least partially carried out by an electronic device is merely applying an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such a feature is not sufficient to provide patent eligibility. See above.
The Applicant further argues that the specific steps of providing “sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof” is not abstract.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The types of therapy of “sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof” is still a therapy that a human person such as a doctor is able to render to a subject or patient in the course of their personal behavior. Its particular application of the therapy being implemented on a device is merely applying this behavior to a particular technological environment similar to the response above.
The Applicant further argues that the process of generating, implementing and adapting the digital therapy provided to the subject provides a practical application of the abstract idea in that the claim expressly recites how the result is accomplished as opposed to attempting to cover any solution to an identified problem.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is completely silent with what the digital therapy ultimately is. It does say that the therapy needs to include at least sensory inhibition, sensory substitution, sensory integration, or a combination thereof, but beyond that any additional details are absent. The claim further states that the therapy is adjusted based on results, but not how beyond changing a sensory modality input. This kind of detail is not nearly enough to establish a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a particular medical condition. As written, the claim covers any solution variation with the barest of rail guards against a monopoly in this technological space.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed features of the pending claims improve how digital therapeutic systems function.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of such an improvement to system function. Accordingly, this argument is a bare assertion of improvement and is therefore not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims are being implemented by a particular machine that is integral to the claim, via the “personal electronic device”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is almost no other recitation of a more generic kind of device than a “personal electronic device”. This is not even specific enough to encapsulate a processor, let alone any specific computer system. Any device that uses electricity is the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation. To prevail on a “particular machine” argument, the Applicant must claim the system in a way that is specific to the actual elements of the machine. Not any and all machines qualify. See MPEP 2106.05(b)
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims recite additional elements that provide something significantly more than the abstract idea by providing limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Specifically, the sequence of modifying sensory modality inputs, monitoring responses, and adapting therapy in real time confines the invention to a specific and unconventional implementation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite that the claimed steps are happening in real time. This may be the intended use, but the claim itself is silent with regard to the specific temporal connection between generating and adapting digital therapy. Accordingly, the Applicant is arguing for features that are not claimed. However, even if these functions were happening in real time, the argued features are not an additional element to the abstract idea, but rather part of the abstract idea itself. An abstract idea per se cannot also something significantly more than the same abstract idea. Only an additional element to the abstract idea can satisfy this requirement.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the usage of the term “sensory substitution” in the as-filed specification and its usage in the Slepian reference are divergent meanings. There is no ordinary or customary meaning of “sensory substitution”. Slepian teaches away from the claimed invention. Slepian clearly defines and uses “sensory substitution” to mean one related to changes in somatic state of the patient as related to the patient’s feelings. The present application defines “sensory substitution” in paragraph [0112] and claim 15 which is different.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that it appears that the cited paragraph for the definition of “sensory substitution” refers to the Pre-Grant Publication of this Application, US 2024/0363225, which corresponds with paragraph [00094] of the as-filed specification. This definition is:
“As understood herein “sensory substitution” refers to the at least partial replacement of at least one human sensory modality input with at least one other human sensory modality input.” (Paragraph [00094] of the as-filed specification)
If this is the incorrect paragraph, the Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant identifies the document from which they cite. The Applicant has cited paragraph [0023] of Slepian as evidence that “sensory substitution” merely refers to changing how the patients feel. This is an improper interpretation of Slepian. It is abundantly clear by referring to Figures 1 and 3 of Slepian that the way to change how to change the feelings of the patient is through sensory substitution:
“For example, a disease game (e.g., game 130, described below) may improve adherence to therapy or a change in lifestyle by allowing the player (i.e., patient 108) to experience this and may associate this with one or more of a positive sound, a pleasant vision, and a pleasurable smell, thereby substituting one type of somaticized response for an alternative sensory feeling.” (Paragraph [0023] of Slepian)
In other words, when the Virtual Environment generator 102 (which renders game 130) changes the audio or visual inputs to a subject, their feelings become more positive. This is the identical function of “sensory substitution” as defined by the as-filed specification. Slepian explicitly at least partially replaces one human sensory modality input with at least one other human sensory modality input. Accordingly, Slepian does not teach away from “sensory substitution” as defined by the as-filed specification.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are rendered moot in light of the foregoing arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
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 H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681