DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 11/24/2025 in which claims 1, 12, 40, and 42 have been amended, claims 4, 8, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-39, and 43-48 have been canceled and new claims 49-51 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 40-42, and 49-51 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1 (and elsewhere, where applicable), line 12, Examiner interprets “receive at least one signal from the at last one sensor” to be receiving a data from a sensor. The signal are transitory in nature. In line 14, apply the signal to a plurality of configurations is interpreted as apply the data received from one sensor to a plurality of configurations.
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, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 40-42, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of inducing wellness without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 40, and 42.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes a system, comprising: (a) an apparatus configured to be proximal to a user, the apparatus having a substantially spherical body and one or more indentations located on an outer surface of the body for placing one or more fingers from at least one hand of the user, the apparatus comprising: - at least one sensor configured to collect signals associated with a current session of a user; and - an indicator; (b) a processor in communication with a memory module having stored thereon program code and raw and/or processed data associated with at least one previous session, the program code being executable by the processor to perform the following steps: - receive at least one signal from the at least one sensor; - receive the data associated with at least one previous session of the user; - apply the signal and the data to a plurality of configurations; -apply a score to each of the plurality of configurations, the scores being values associated with key performance indicators(s) (KPI) of the user; - identify at least one of the plurality of configurations as having a preferred score (for KPI value); - generate a set of instructions comprising operations parameters for the current session, at least partly based on the at least one of the plurality of configurations; and – provide the set of instructions to the indicator. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of inducing wellness. Furthermore; if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of an apparatus, sensor, indicator, a processor, a memory module, and a program code do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of an apparatus, sensor, indicator, a processor, a memory module, and a program code result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an apparatus, sensor, indicator, a processor, a memory module, and a program code are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations of an apparatus, sensor, indicator, a processor, a memory module, and a program code are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an apparatus, sensor, indicator, a processor, a memory module, and a program code are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 40 and 42 and hence the claims 40 and 42 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 41, and 49-51 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 40 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 41, and 49-51 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 40-42, and 49-51 are not patent-eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 18, 40-42, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardas, US Patent Application No. 2017/0224273 in view of Kil, US Patent Application No. 2010/0331146 in view of Shchezhin, RU-2020989-C1.
Regarding claim 1, Vardas discloses a wellness inducing system, comprising:
an apparatus configured to be proximal to a user, the apparatus having a substantially spherical body and one or more indentations located on an outer surface of the body for placing one or more fingers from at least one hand of the user, the apparatus comprising ([0003]-[0004], [0020]):
at least one sensor configured to collect signals associated with a current session of a user ([0003]-[0004], wearable, [0016], [0027]-[0030]); and
an indicator ([0004], button, [0020] indicator 110, Fig. 6, sensors 106 and 108 are configured to be activated by a button integral with the sensor 108);
a processor in communication with a memory module having stored thereon program code and raw and/or processed data associated with at least one previous session, the program code being executable by the processor to perform the following steps ([0021]-[0024] vibration pattern … selected; [0026]-[0027] measured, compare):
receive at least one signal from the at least one sensor ([0003]-[0004], wearable, [0016], [0027]-[0030]); and
receive the data associated with at least one previous session of the user ([0021]-[0024] vibration pattern … selected; [0026]-[0027] measured, compare);
-apply the signal and the data to a plurality of configurations ([0021]-[0024] pattern, [0028] vibrations can be given in different increments of time as desired and as a function of heart rate variability sensed from the user);
- apply a score to each of the plurality of configurations, the scores being values associated with key performance indicators(s) (KPI) of the user;
- identify at least one of the plurality of configurations as having a preferred score (or KPI value) ([0028]-[0031], feedback options, duration, frequency and magnitude of a vibration pattern is selected, if the heart rate variability has increased, a long, calming and massaging vibration can be emitted);
- generate a set of instructions comprising operational parameters for the current session, at least partly based on the at least one of the plurality of configurations ([0028]-[0031]); and
-provide the set of instructions to the indicator ([0004], button, [0020] indicator 110, Fig. 6, sensors 106 and 108 are configured to be activated by a button integral with the sensor 108);
Vardas does not specifically disclose
the apparatus having a substantially spherical body and one or more indentations located on an outer surface of the body for placing one or more fingers from at least one hand of the user,
apply a score to each of the plurality of configurations, the scores being values associated with key performance indicators(s) (KPI) of the user.
However, Kil discloses
apply a score to each of the plurality of configurations, the scores being values associated with key performance indicators(s) (KPI) of the user ([0004]-[0005], [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Vardas to include the above-noted disclosure of Kil. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide more accurate configuration selection.
Vardas and Kil do not specifically disclose
the apparatus having a substantially spherical body and one or more indentations located on an outer surface of the body for placing one or more fingers from at least one hand of the user,
However, Shchezhin discloses
the apparatus having a substantially spherical body and one or more indentations located on an outer surface of the body for placing one or more fingers from at least one hand of the user (page 2, lines 20-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Vardas and Kil to include the above-noted disclosure of Shchezhin . The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide more accurate configuration selection.
Regarding claim 2, it has been held that a wherein clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim (Texas Instruments Inc. v. International Trade Commission 26, USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Griffin v. Bertina, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1747 (CAFC 2001)), therefore, wherein a higher value of the score is indicative of a better KPI will not differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Vardas discloses wherein the signals associated with a current session of a user comprise at least one of a signal associated with a wellness state of the user and/or a signal associated with raw data of the current session, wherein signals associated with the wellness state of the user comprise physiological measurements from which the wellness state of the user can be deduced ([0026]-[0027], [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Vardas discloses wherein the raw data comprises environmental factors of the surrounding which can affect physiological measurements of the user ([0002], [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Vardas discloses wherein the raw data comprises user specific data, the user specific data comprising any one or more of the age, gender, medical history, user reported data, and data that is passively collected from the user ([0069], [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Vardas discloses wherein the processed data comprises data associated with the wellness state of the user based, at least in part, on analyzed raw data ([0069], [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 9, Vardas discloses wherein each configuration depicts one or more optional sets of instructions ([0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Vardas discloses wherein the program code is further executable to identify the user ([0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Vardas discloses wherein the signals are associated with at least one of a breathing rate, heart rate, and movement of the user ([0029]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Vardas discloses wherein the program code is further executable to store and/or record data associated with the user, the data comprising any one or more of signals obtained during the session, one or more configurations having one or more scores indicating the KPI of the user, environmental data, data inputted by the user, and the set of instructions of the session ([0003]-[0004], [0016], [0021]-[0030]).
However, Kil discloses
scores indicating the KPI of the user ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Vardas to include the above-noted disclosure of Kil. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide more accurate configuration selection.
Regarding claim 18, Kil discloses wherein generating the set of instructions for the current session is based, at least in part, on a subset of the plurality of configuration, wherein the scores of the subset of the plurality of configurations are associated with desired KPI values ([0080]).
Regarding claim 40, Vardas discloses a biofeedback method of inducing wellness comprising:
positioning the apparatus defined in claim 1 in proximity to a user ([0003]-[0004], [0020], Examiner interprets apparatus of claim 1 to include all limitations of claim 1 and relies on the prior art disclosure as presented above for claim 1); and
receiving at least two indications from the indicator, thereby self-adjusting the wellness of level of the user ([0029]-[0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Vardas to include the above-noted disclosure of Kil. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide more accurate configuration selection.
Regarding claim 41, Vardas discloses wherein positioning the apparatus in proximity to the user comprises positioning the apparatus in contact with the user ([0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 51, Vardas discloses wherein the signal associated with at least a breathing rate or a heart rate are modified by the signals associated with movement, thereby eliminating noise within the signals associated with at least a breathing rate or a heart rate ([0028]-[0031]).
Claim 42 is substantially similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardas, US Patent Application No. 2017/0224273 in view of Kil, US Patent Application No. 2010/0331146 in view of Shchezhin, RU-2020989-C1 in view of Matichuk et al., CA 3001628.
Regarding claim 50, Matichuk discloses wherein the at least one sensor includes an electrocardiogram, (ECG) sensor and an accelerometer (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Vardas, Kil, and Shchezhin to include the above-noted disclosure of Matichuk. The motivation for combining these references would have been to provide more accurate configuration selection.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 40-42 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that claims 1 and 42 have now been amended to further include specific structural features of the apparatus. These features add significantly more to the claims, which are not directed to a tangible apparatus having define structural features.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the specific structural elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented above in this office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684