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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/17/2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 7 of the response that claim 1 is not directed to any grouping of abstract idea, and is instead “directed to specific technical features, including "identifying, by a computing system, a session defining a plurality of tasks for a user to be performed using at least one hand of the user" and a feature in which "at least one task for the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element", which is not any of the aforementioned methods of organizing human activity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, whether a claim recites an abstract idea is determined based on whether the claim recites elements falling within the scope of one of the enumerated categories of abstract idea. The analysis provided in Step 2A Prong 1 of the rejection outlines the elements construed as falling within the scope of a method of organizing human activity, which include identifying a session defining a plurality of tasks for a user to be performed using at least one hand of the user to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user, providing a first indication to perform a first task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a first portion of the session, and wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element. As explained in the rejection, the identified elements instructing a user to perform a series of tasks in sequence to address a behavior associated with a condition of the user amounts to a method of managing the personal behavior of the user via performance of those tasks. The use of a computing system to identify the session defining a plurality of tasks constitutes an additional element evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. As outlined in those sections however, the recited computer system only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools.
Applicant further argues that “[a]mended claim 1 provides many technical improvements and solves several challenges in the field,” citing the specification as describing certain of the tasks helping the use “to visualize and draw attention away from the maladaptive behavior (e.g., scratching) through the duration of the urge to perform such behaviors,” and that behavioral therapies “can be difficult to obtain, especially in the moment when an individual feels the urge.” However, these assertions lack nexus with the actual language of the claims, and only amount to a description of intended benefit rather than amounting to an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
With respect to Applicant’s assertion that claim 1 recites a combination of steps directed to achieving a therapeutic effect of addressing a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user, Examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 1 satisfies the requirements in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) setting out the requirements for whether a particular treatment and prophylaxis is sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2. MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) states initially that “[o]ne way to demonstrate such integration is when the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.” (emphasis added).
The specific considerations for whether a claim integrates a recited abstract idea into a practical application by effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition are:
the particularity or generality of the treatment or prophylaxis;
whether the limitations have more than a nominal or insignificant relationship to the exception; and
whether the limitations are merely extra-solution activity or a field of use.
Initially, the treatment or prophylaxis must be “particular,” i.e. specifically identified. MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) provides the example of a claim reciting mentally analyzing information to identify if a patient has a genotype associated with poor metabolism of beta blocker medications, wherein the additional element of “administering a lower than normal dosage of a beta blocker medication to a patient identified as having the poor metabolizer genotype” was considered to be “particular.” Conversely, MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) states that the recitation of “administering a suitable medication to a patient” would not constitute a “particular” treatment or prophylaxis in conjunction with the same abstract idea.
In contrast, claim 1 only broadly recites the tasks as “to be performed using at least one hand of the user to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user.” Merely describing that the tasks are performing using a hand and are intended to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user is not sufficient to constitute a particular treatment or prophylaxis.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
B. Applicant's statement with respect to the rejection of under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 10 of the response that “Without conceding the propriety of the rejection, independent claims 1 and 11 are amended, thereby rendering the rejection moot.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant does not provide arguments addressing why the claims as amended overcome the rejection, as set out in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 USC 102 below Alailima discloses the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen (see paragraphs 59 and 112) as well as the interface displaying instructions to perform navigation tasks as well as rendering avatars and other interface elements (see paragraphs 40, 44, 206, and 210). Figures 10A-10D, 11A-11D, and 13A-D, [208], [210], and [211] provide additional examples of navigation and other tasks. Examiner maintains that Alailima therefore discloses the newly added subject matter in claims 1 and 11 as well as the subject matter previously recited.
Applicant does not provide further arguments addressing the claims rejected under 35 USC 103.
The rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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 1-24 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. Claims 1-10, 21, and 22 are drawn to a method while claims 11-20, 23, and 24 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
identifying a session defining a plurality of tasks for a user to be performed using at least one hand of the user to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user;
providing a first indication to perform a first task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a first portion of the session;
providing subsequent to the first task, a second indication to perform a second task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a second portion of the session; and
providing subsequent to the second task, a third indication to perform a third task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a third portion of the session,
wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element.
These elements constitute a form of managing personal behavior and therefore fall within the scope of an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of instructing a user to perform a series of tasks in sequence to address a behavior associated with a condition of the user. This amounts to a method of managing the personal behavior of the user via performance of those tasks.
With respect to the inclusion of the limitation reciting “wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element” in the above abstract idea, Examiner notes that this limitation only describes the contents of the prompt, i.e. that the prompt instructs the user to maintain at least one hand on the display during a presentation of a visual element. The limitation does not actually recite the display as being used to present the visual element.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations and also recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional element of a computing system used to perform data analysis functions including identifying the session and providing the first, second, and third indications.
Paragraphs 49-52 of the specification as originally filed describe a computing system in the form of a session management service, which is then described as “any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein” and as located at a server group and/or a user device such as a smartphone or other mobile device. The computing system is therefore construed as encompassing generic computing elements.
The recited computing system only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The computing system is only recited at a high level of generality with each corresponding function performed “by” the computing system, and is likewise disclosed at a high level of generality as any of a number of different generic computing components.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 11 only recite the computing system as a tool for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein the plurality of tasks comprises one or more of (i) a go/no-go task to prompt the user to perform or withhold a first action, (ii) a habit reversal therapy task to prompt the user to perform a second action instead of performing a third action associated with the maladaptive behavior, and (iii) an urge surfing task to prompt the user to perform a fourth action for the duration of the propensity for the maladaptive behavior. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 3 and 13 recite wherein providing the second indication further comprises providing the second indication responsive to completion of the first task, and wherein providing the third indication further comprises providing the third indication responsive to completion of the second task. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 4 and 14 recite wherein at least one of the tasks is to perform at least one of an interaction or non-interaction with a stimulus associated with the condition, the stimulus comprising at least one of text, an image, or audio. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 5 and 15 recite receiving a request from the user indicating an onset of the behavior associated with the condition; and initiating responsive to receiving the request, the session to address the propensity for the behavior associated with the condition. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 5 and 15 further recite the additional element of the computing system, which is used to perform the functions of receiving the request from the user and initiating the session.
As cited above, paragraphs 49-52 of the specification describe a computing system in the form of a session management service, which is then described as “any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein” and as located at a server group and/or a user device such as a smartphone or other mobile device. The computing system is therefore construed as encompassing generic computing elements.
The recited computing system only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The computing system is only recited at a high level of generality with the receiving and initiating functions being performed “by” the computing system, and is likewise disclosed at a high level of generality as any of a number of different generic computing components. The above elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 recite receiving a sensory data identifying one or more physiological measurements of the user while performing the first task, and modifying the second task based on the one or more physiological measurements of the user identified in the sensory data. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 6 and 16 further recite the additional element of the computing system, which is used to perform the functions of receiving the sensory data and modifying the second task.
As cited above, paragraphs 49-52 of the specification describe a computing system in the form of a session management service, which is then described as “any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein” and as located at a server group and/or a user device such as a smartphone or other mobile device. The computing system is therefore construed as encompassing generic computing elements.
The recited computing system only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The computing system is only recited at a high level of generality with the receiving and modifying functions being performed “by” the computing system, and is likewise disclosed at a high level of generality as any of a number of different generic computing components. The above elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 recite wherein the one or more physiological measurements further comprises at least one of a breathing pattern, a pupil dilation, a heart rate, skin conductance, or oxygen saturation. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 8 and 18 recite determining a score based on performance of at least one of the tasks, the score identifying at least one of (i) a degree of compliance of the user with the at least one task or (ii) a likelihood of overcoming the propensity for the behavior. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 8 and 18 further recite the additional element of the computing system, which is used to perform the function of determining the score.
As cited above, paragraphs 49-52 of the specification describe a computing system in the form of a session management service, which is then described as “any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein” and as located at a server group and/or a user device such as a smartphone or other mobile device. The computing system is therefore construed as encompassing generic computing elements.
The recited computing system only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The computing system is only recited at a high level of generality with the determining function being performed “by” the computing system, and is likewise disclosed at a high level of generality as any of a number of different generic computing components. The above elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 19 recite generating feedback to provide to the user based on performance of at least one of the tasks. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 9 and 19 further recite the additional element of the computing system, which is used to perform the function of generating the feedback.
As cited above, paragraphs 49-52 of the specification describe a computing system in the form of a session management service, which is then described as “any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein” and as located at a server group and/or a user device such as a smartphone or other mobile device. The computing system is therefore construed as encompassing generic computing elements.
The recited computing system only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions of the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. The computing system is only recited at a high level of generality as used to generate the feedback, and is likewise disclosed at a high level of generality as any of a number of different generic computing components. The above elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 20 recite wherein the condition includes a skin condition corresponding to at least one of (i) atopic dermatitis, (ii) contact dermatitis, (iii) psoriasis, (iv) urticaria, (v) prurigo nodularis, (vi) lichen planus, (vii) acne vulgaris, (viii) a drug-induced rash, (xi) xerosis, or (x) uremia, wherein the user is taking a medication to address the skin condition, at least in partial concurrence with the session to address the propensity of maladaptive behavior of scratching. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 21 and 23 recite wherein at least one hand is at least one fingertip. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 22 and 24 recite wherein at least one hand is at least one thumb. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1-24 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the display" in line 15 and line 14 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the respective claims because neither claim previously recites a display.
Claims 2-10 and 12-24 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11 through dependency and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alailima et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908).
With respect to claim 1, Alailima discloses the claimed method of providing training via visual elements for presentation to address maladaptive behavior in users ([180], [183], [184], and [219] describe presenting the elements to address impulsive behavior), comprising:
identifying, by a computing system ([229], [231], and [238]-[240] describe the disclosed functions performed by a system including processing devices and memory), a session defining a plurality of tasks for a user ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user) to be performed using at least one hand of the user ([50], [122], [208], and [210] describe using a smartphone touchscreen and the user tapping the screen to perform tasks) to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user ([180], [183], [184], and [219] describe presenting the elements to address impulsive behavior);
providing, by the computing system, a first indication to perform a first task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a first portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a first task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions);
providing, by the computing system, subsequent to the first task, a second indication to perform a second task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a second portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a second task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions); and
providing, by the computing system, subsequent to the second task, a third indication to perform a third task of the plurality of tasks using at least one hand in a third portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a third task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions);
wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element ([59] and [122] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen; [40], [44], [206], and [210] describe the interface displaying instructions to perform navigation tasks as well as rendering avatars and other interface elements; Figures 10A-10D, 11A-11D, and 13A-D, [208], [210], and [211] provide examples of navigation and other tasks. Examiner notes that the above limitation does not place any requirements on what constitutes “maintaining” the at least one hand of the user on the display, or require that the hand be maintained for an entire period during which the visual element is presented. The broadest reasonable interpretation of maintaining at least one hand of the user on the display during a presentation of a visual element would therefore encompass a swipe or other gesture of continued contact performed while any visual element is displayed. Examiner additionally notes that the disclosure as originally filed would not provide support for a limitation requiring a user to maintain at least one hand on the display during the entire period during which a visual element is displayed (see e.g. paragraph 114 of the specification)).
With respect to claim 2, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further discloses:
wherein the plurality of tasks comprises one or more of (i) a go/no-go task to prompt the user to perform or withhold a first action ([59], [95], and [122] describe the tasks including go/no go tasks), (ii) a habit reversal therapy task to prompt the user to perform a second action instead of performing a third action associated with the maladaptive behavior, and (iii) an urge surfing task to prompt the user to perform a fourth action for the duration of the propensity for the maladaptive behavior.
With respect to claim 3, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further disloses:
wherein providing the second indication further comprises providing the second indication responsive to completion of the first task, and wherein providing the third indication further comprises providing the third indication responsive to completion of the second task ([197] describes the sessions being comprised of a sequence of tasks/trials, [58], [149], and [152] describe tracking completed tasks/trials as well as the user finishing a trial and moving on to a next trial, while Figures 10A-10D, [44], and [206] describe providing the user with instructions for each presented task/trial).
With respect to claim 4, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further disloses:
wherein at least one of the tasks is to perform at least one of an interaction or non-interaction with a stimulus associated with the condition, the stimulus comprising at least one of text, an image, or audio ([44], [59], [142], [208], and [210] describe the tasks including requiring the user to interact with or not interact with different target and non-target stimuli as well as text and audio instructions for the user to interact with the application; Figures 10A-14D show different screens having graphical and text stimuli associated with the use’s condition. Examiner notes paragraph 85 of Applicant’s specification stating that “the stimulus may include presentation of an image instructing the user 210 to interact with the application 125 via the user interface 130,” i.e. stimuli include instructions to the user).
With respect to claim 6, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further disloses:
receiving, by the computing system, a sensory data identifying one or more physiological measurements of the user while performing the first task ([42], [64], [122], and [126] describe the system receiving physiological sensor data during the tasks), and
modifying, by the computing system, the second task based on the one or more physiological measurements of the user identified in the sensory data (Claim 100, [122], [126], [149], [150], [152], and [218] describe the system modifying the successive tasks or trials during a session based on information including the physiological data).
With respect to claim 7, Alailima discloses the method of claim 6. Alailima further disloses:
wherein the one or more physiological measurements further comprises at least one of a breathing pattern, a pupil dilation, a heart rate, skin conductance, or oxygen saturation ([64] and [122] list the physiological sensor data as including respiratory rate, pupil dilation, heart rate, galvanic skin response, and blood oxygenation).
With respect to claim 8, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further disloses:
determining, by the computing system, a score based on performance of at least one of the tasks, the score identifying at least one of (i) a degree of compliance of the user with the at least one task (Figures 11A-11D, [44], [205], [206], [213], and [214] describe calculating progress metrics, analysis metrics, performance status, and other scores which indicate the user’s success in complying with the trials or tasks) or (ii) a likelihood of overcoming the propensity for the behavior.
With respect to claim 9, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further disloses:
generating, by the computing system, feedback to provide to the user based on performance of at least one of the tasks (Figures 11A-11D, [44], [205], [206], [213], and [214] describe displaying progress metrics, analysis metrics, performance status, and other scores which indicate the user’s success in complying with the trials or tasks).
With respect to claim 11, Alailima discloses the claimed system for configuring visual elements to inhibit user propensity for maladaptive behavior ([180], [183], [184], and [219] describe presenting the elements to address impulsive behavior), comprising: a computing system having one or more processors coupled with memory ([229], [231], and [238]-[240] describe the system including processing devices and memory), configured to:
identify a session defining a plurality of tasks for a user to be performed using at least one hand of the user holding a display to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user) to be performed using at least one hand of the user ([50], [122], [208], and [210] describe using a smartphone touchscreen and the user tapping the screen to perform tasks) to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user ([180], [183], [184], and [219] describe presenting the elements to address impulsive behavior);
provide a first indication to perform a first task of the plurality of tasks using the at least one hand in a first portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a first task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions);
provide, subsequent to the first task, a second indication to perform a second task of the plurality of tasks using the at least one hand in a second portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a second task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions); and
provide, subsequent to the second task, a third indication to perform a third task of the plurality of tasks using the at least one hand in a third portion of the session ([42], [44], and [197] describe determining a session comprising a third task of a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user; [44], [208], and [210] describe providing the user with instructions on how to perform presented tasks and the user using a hand to perform the actions).
wherein at least one task of the plurality of tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on the display during a presentation of a visual element ([59] and [122] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen; [40], [44], [206], and [210] describe the interface displaying instructions to perform navigation tasks as well as rendering avatars and other interface elements; Figures 10A-10D, 11A-11D, and 13A-D, [208], [210], and [211] provide examples of navigation and other tasks. Examiner notes that the above limitation does not place any requirements on what constitutes “maintaining” the at least one hand of the user on the display, or require that the hand be maintained for an entire period during which the visual element is presented. The broadest reasonable interpretation of maintaining at least one hand of the user on the display during a presentation of a visual element would therefore encompass a swipe or other gesture of continued contact performed while any visual element is displayed. Examiner additionally notes that the disclosure as originally filed would not provide support for a limitation requiring a user to maintain at least one hand on the display during the entire period during which a visual element is displayed (see e.g. paragraph 114 of the specification)).
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those in claim 2, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those in claim 3, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those in claim 4, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those in claim 6, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those in claim 7, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 7.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those in claim 8, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to those in claim 9, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0112140).
With respect to claim 5, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima further discloses:
initiating, by the computing system, the session to address the propensity for the behavior associated with the condition ([42], [44], [180], [183], [184], [197], and [219] describe determining a session comprising a plurality of tasks to be performed by the user to address behavior such as impulsivity),
but does not expressly disclose:
initiating the session in response to receiving a request from the user indicating an onset of the behavior associated with the condition.
However, Gao teaches that it was old and well known in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a request from a user indicating an onset of a behavior associated with a condition and initiate a session in response to receiving the request (Figures 5 and 7-13, [87], [88], [115], [116], and [127]-[129] describe a user activating a button indicating that they are experiencing a craving and being presented with a session).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alailima to receive a request from a user indicating an onset of a behavior associated with a condition and initiate a session in response to receiving the request as taught by Gao since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Alailima already discloses a user interacting with the system via an app (see Alailima [67] and [122]) as well as initiating a session for the user, and initiating the session in response to receiving a request from the user indicating an onset of the behavior associated with the condition as taught by Gao would perform that same function in Alailima, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those in claim 5, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Basta et al (WO 2023/133575).
With respect to claim 10, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima does not expressly disclose wherein the condition includes a skin condition corresponding to at least one of (i) atopic dermatitis, (ii) contact dermatitis, (iii) psoriasis, (iv) urticaria, (v) prurigo nodularis, (vi) lichen planus, (vii) acne vulgaris, (viii) a drug-induced rash, (xi) xerosis, or (x) uremia, wherein the user is taking a medication to address the skin condition, at least in partial concurrence with the session to address the propensity of maladaptive behavior of scratching.
However, Basta teaches that it was old and well known in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a skin condition associated with a user corresponding to atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, urticaria, prurigo nodularis, or uremia ([7], [76], [179], and [202] describe a system for treating chronic itch behaviors related to conditions including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, urticaria, prurigo, uremic conditions, and medication-induced pruritis), wherein the user is taking a medication to address the skin condition, at least in partial concurrence with the session to address the propensity of maladaptive behavior of scratching (Figure 13, [21], [114], [165], [193], and [274] describe the user currently being on medications for their itch condition).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alailima to include a skin condition associated with a user corresponding to atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, urticaria, prurigo nodularis, or uremia, wherein the user is taking a medication to address the skin condition, at least in partial concurrence with the session to address the propensity of maladaptive behavior of scratching as taught by Basta since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Alailima already discloses a user having a condition as well as the user taking a medication to address their condition concurrently with a session (see Alailima [55] and [71]), and including a skin condition corresponding to atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, urticaria, prurigo nodularis, or uremia, with the user taking the medication to address the skin condition at least in partial concurrence with the session, to address the propensity of maladaptive behavior of scratching as taught by Basta would perform that same function in Alailima, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to those in claim 20, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 20.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Elantkowski et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0298964).
With respect to claim 21, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima does not expressly disclose wherein at least one hand is at least one fingertip.
However, Elantkowski teaches that it was old and well known in the art of clinical tasking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prompt for at least one fingertip of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element (Figures 5A and 5B, [794], [947], [1000], and [1013] describe a game task in which the patient is instructed to pinch a shape or graphic displayed on the screen by placing their index finger and thumb on the screen).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alailima to prompt for at least one fingertip of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element as taught by Elantkowski since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Alailima already discloses prompting for at least one hand of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element, and having the hand include a fingertip as taught by Elantkowski would perform that same function in Alailima, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 22, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima does not expressly disclose wherein at least one hand is at least one thumb.
However, Elantkowski teaches that it was old and well known in the art of clinical tasking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prompt for at least one thumb of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element (Figures 5A and 5B, [794], [947], [1000], and [1013] describe a game task in which the patient is instructed to pinch a shape or graphic displayed on the screen by placing their index finger and thumb on the screen).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of behavioral training before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alailima to prompt for at least one thumb of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element as taught by Elantkowski since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Alailima already discloses prompting for at least one hand of a user to be maintained on a display during presentation of a visual element, and having the hand include a thumb as taught by Elantkowski would perform that same function in Alailima, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 23 recites limitations similar to those in claim 21, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 24 recites limitations similar to those in claim 22, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dennis et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0349261);
Gotz et al (WO 2024/002499);
Klein et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0050090);
Morgan et al (US 11,217,033).
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 WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682