DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 29 July 2026, on an application filed 17 May 2024, which is a continuation of a foreign application that claims priority to 19 July 2023.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14 have been amended.
Claims 4, 8, 9 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
New corrected drawings were received on 29 July 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Giap et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2015/0306340 A1), hereinafter Giap, further in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Patent 8,027,518 B2), hereinafter Baker and Dixit (U.S. Patent 12,539,078 B2), hereinafter Dixit.
As per claims 1 and 13, Giap discloses A method of providing a health care service (Giap, see Fig. 9.) and a server comprising: a communicator; and a controller configured (Giap, see the V/R medical console #106 and the treatment control apparatus #150 of Fig. 1.) to:
receive biometric information associated with a user who uses a health care device through the communicator (Giap receives facial and voice data to verify identity via the V/R headset interface, see Fig. 1 #142, Fig. 6 #536, Fig. 9 #632 and paragraphs 131 and 140.);
identify the user based on the biometric information (Giap receives facial and voice data to verify identity via the V/R headset interface, see Fig. 1 #142, Fig. 6 #536, Fig. 9 #632 and paragraphs 131 and 140.),
compare a current value of the biometric information with a previous value of the biometric information (Giap receives additional biometric information, establishes a range of acceptable biometric limits, and then compares new biometric information with the range, see Fig. 5 #512, Fig. 7, Fig. 9 #s 712-714 and paragraphs 126 and 142.),
determine a change in a condition of the identified user based on … biometric information for which a difference between the current value and the previous value is outside of a predetermined range (Giap determines a condition change based on biometric information being outside of predetermined ranges, see Fig. 5 #512, Fig. 7, Fig. 9 #s 712-714 and paragraphs 126 and 142. Note various biometrics measured of Fig. 7.),
determine a customized mode for the health care device based on the change in the condition of the identified user, the customized mode comprising at least one modified mode from among a plurality of control modes of the health care device … (Based on the user’s biometric data being outside of a tolerance range, the system determines a customized treatment mode out of a plurality of control modes, one mode being an adjustment of treatment when the range is still within safety limits and another mode being when the range is outside of safety limits, see Giap Fig. 9 #s714, 738-742 and 752.), and
transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to perform a personalized care operation corresponding to the identified user by operating according to the customized mode (System informs the operator of the issu, and the operator issues control command to perform the customized mode treatment as needed, see Fig. 9 #s742, 750 and 752 and paragraphs 144 and 145.); and
1. collecting data through at least one server (Giap discloses collecting data via the treatment apparatus control, see Fig. 1 #150.).
Giap fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a server is used to verify user identity using biometric information
simultaneously considering the results of a combination of biometric information;
at least one modified mode having one or more changed mode variables, and
wherein: the health care device comprises a smart bed, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a bed posture, a mattress hardness, a heat, a humidity, or an illumination; the health care device comprises a smart massage device, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a massage type, a massage portion, a massage intensity, a heating portion, or a heating intensity; or the health care device comprises smart workout equipment, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a workout type or a workout intensity.
Baker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose:
wherein a server is used to verify user identity using biometric information (Baker, Fig. 7.);
at least one modified mode having one or more changed mode variables (Baker discloses adjusting the firmness of a mattress or the resistance of a weight bench/workout rate of a device, which would comprise changed mode variables, see C2L25-28, C9L23-26, and C12L64-67.); and
wherein: the health care device comprises a smart bed, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a bed posture, a mattress hardness, a heat, a humidity, or an illumination; the health care device comprises a smart massage device, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a massage type, a massage portion, a massage intensity, a heating portion, or a heating intensity; or the health care device comprises smart workout equipment, and the one or more changed mode variables comprise at least one of a workout type or a workout intensity ((Baker discloses use of a smart bed that can adjust hardness, see C12L64-67 and use of an adjustable workout device that can change the intensity, see C8L23-26.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality medical application system of Giap to include averaging using a server to identify a user, a modified mode having changed variables and adjusting a smart bed or smart workout equipment, as taught by Baker, in order to arrive at a virtual reality medical application system that provides automatic configuration of devices based on biometric data.
Neither Giap nor Baker disclose simultaneously considering the results of a combination of biometric information.
Dixit however teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose simultaneously considering the results of a combination of biometric information (See at least Dixit, Fig. 8, which simultaneously considers two biometric data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality medical application system of Giap/Baker to include simultaneously considering the results of a combination of biometric information, as taught by Dixit, in order to arrive at a virtual reality medical application system that considers all available data sources in combination when monitoring a patient’s treatment.
Giap, Baker and Dixit are all directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to the provision of treatment services. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12, Giap/Baker/Dixit discloses claims 1 and 13, discussed above. Giap/Baker also discloses:
2. wherein the identifying the user comprises identifying the user by comparing the biometric information with registered biometric information stored in the user database (Giap receives facial and voice data to verify identity via the V/R headset interface, see Fig. 1 #142, Fig. 6 #536, Fig. 9 #632 and paragraphs 131 and 140. As shown above, Baker discloses confirming identify using data stored in a database, as shown above, see Figs. 1 and 7.);
5. wherein the biometric information comprises information about at least one of a height, a weight, a blood pressure, a heart rate, a heart rate variability, an oxygen saturation, a respiratory rate, a body temperature, fingerprints, an iris, a face, a vein, a voice, or a snoring sound (Baker, see Fig. 5 #504 and Fig. 7 #608.);
7. wherein the performing the personalized care operation comprises displaying information about at least one of a recommended mode, a medical treatment, or a health care method to the identified user based on the change in the condition of the identified user (Baker provides an alert to patient to make adjustment based on changed condition, see Fig. 6 #570.); and
10. wherein based on the health care device comprising a smart bed, the customized mode comprises at least one modified mode from among a plurality of control modes of the smart bed, in which one or more of a bed posture, a mattress hardness, a heat, a humidity and an illumination is changed (Based on the user’s biometric data being outside of a tolerance range, the system determines a customized treatment modes out of a plurality of control modes, one mode being an adjustment of treatment when the range is still within safety limits and another mode being when the range is outside of safety limits, see Giap Fig. 9 #s714, 738-742 and 752. As shown above, Baker discloses use of a smart bed that can adjust hardness, see C12L64-67.); and
12. wherein based on the health care device comprising smart workout equipment, the customized mode comprises at least one modified mode from among a plurality of control modes of the smart workout equipment in which one or more of a workout type and a workout intensity is changed (Based on the user’s biometric data being outside of a tolerance range, the system determines a customized treatment modes out of a plurality of control modes, one mode being an adjustment of treatment when the range is still within safety limits and another mode being when the range is outside of safety limits, see Giap Fig. 9 #s714, 738-742 and 752. As shown above, Baker discloses use of an adjustable workout device that can change the intensity, see C8L23-26.).
As per claims 3 and 14, Giap/Baker/Dixit discloses claim 1, discussed above. Giap fails to explicitly disclose but Baker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to transmit, to the health care device, a control command instructing the health care device to operate according to a mode that is preferred by the identified user from among a plurality of control modes of the health care device (Baker operates the device in a mode preferred by a user, see C11L30-38, C12L57-67.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality medical application system of Giap/Baker/Dixit to include transmitting a command to operate a device in a preferred mode, as taught by Baker, in order to arrive at a virtual reality medical application system that provides automatic configuration of devices based on biometric data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claim 6, Giap/Baker/Dixit discloses claim 1, discussed above. Giap fails to explicitly disclose averaging biometric values over time.
Dixit teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose averaging biometric values over time (Dixit, see C12L33-42.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality medical application system of Giap/Baker/Dixit to include averaging biometric values over time, as taught by Dixit, in order to arrive at a virtual reality medical application system that uses more reliable biometric data. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Giap/Baker/Dixit further in view of Inada (U.S. PG-Pub 2018/0168914 A1), hereinafter Inada.
As per claim 11, Giap/Baker/Dixit discloses claim 8, discussed above. Giap/Baker/Dixit fails to explicitly disclose use of a smart massage device.
Inada teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein based on the health care device comprising a smart massage device, the customized mode comprises at least one modified mode from among a plurality of control modes of the smart massage device, in which one or more of a massage type, a massage portion, a massage intensity, a heating portion, and a heating intensity is changed (Inada, see various modes disclosed in Fig. 9.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual reality medical application system of Giap/Baker/Dixit to include use of a smart massage device, as taught by Inada, in order to arrive at a virtual reality medical application system of that uses user identification for treatment provision across a plurality of devices. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Giap and Inada are directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to the provision of treatment services.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 July 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s claimed invention is patent-eligible because of comparison to elements of Examples 37, 39 and 42 from the 2019 PEG. Alternatively, the limitations amount to “significantly more’ than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly this rejection has been removed.
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 July 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 15-20 that the amendments to the claims overcome the cited prior art of record.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new reference necessitated by amendment, Giap, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Giap, Ferrer, Dixit, Baker and Inada, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Action (29 April 2026), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Unused but cited relevant prior art includes:
Birrell et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 20007/0201727 A1) discloses a system for user identification for fitness equipment.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
3 September 2026
Prosecution Insights