Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-24 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, because the claim is “directed to specific technical features that are not descriptive of any of the aforementioned methods of organizing human activity,” and specifically "presenting tasks on a computing system, in which at least one task prompts for at least one hand of the user to be maintained on a touchscreen display during presentation of a visual element, in which prompting for the at least one hand to be maintained on the touchscreen display includes:", "displaying a graphical user interface on the touchscreen display with one or more areas for placing one or more fingers of the at least one hand;" "receiving a first haptic input on a first area of the touchscreen display from one finger of the at least one hand;" "receiving a second haptic input on a second area of the touchscreen display from another finger of the at least one hand;" and "modifying the presentation of the visual element while the haptic inputs are received on the touchscreen display." Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained below in Step 2A Prongs 1 and 2, the elements reciting receiving a first haptic input from one finger of the at least one hand, receiving a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand, and modifying the presentation of the visual element while the haptic inputs are received fall within the scope of the abstract idea. These are functions that could be performed by an individual as part of the personal behavior such as social activities or following rules or instructions. Examiner notes that the claim does not specify any relationship between the user providing the haptic inputs and the modifying of the presentation of the visual element beyond these events occurring at the same time. The claim does not require any particular type of visual element, any particular way in which the visual element is modified, or even that the manner of modification of the visual element be influenced by the inputs. The use of a touchscreen to display a graphical user interface and register the user touching the touchscreen are additional elements, and only amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Applicant does not provide further arguments addressing why these limitations constitute technical features which do not fall within the scope of a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant further argues starting on page 11 that the claims recite elements integrating any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that “Claim 1, considered as a whole, reflects a particular solution to the technical problem that previously the treatments to address maladaptive behaviors (e.g. the urge to scratch itchy skin) of a user have not been effective, particularly due to those treatments being unavailable to the user at critical moments, especially in the moment that the user is experiencing the maladaptive behavior,” and that “Claim 1 provides a solution to this problem by presenting a digital therapeutic, or a software application that is available to the user at any time and at their convenience and schedule, that includes tasks aimed at addressing the maladaptive behaviors of the user, even addressing the maladaptive behavior in the moment that the user is experiencing it.” Applicant cites to Figure 8B and paragraphs 70 and 114 as describing a therapy displayed on a user interface. However, the arguments presented by Applicant and cited content of the specification and drawings lack nexus with the limitations of the claims themselves. For example, claim 1 only recites that at least one of the tasks prompts for at least one hand of the user being maintained on a touchscreen display during a presentation of a visual element, displaying a GUI on the touchscreen display “comprising one or more areas for placing one or more fingers of the at least one hand of the user,” and “modifying the presentation of the visual element” while receiving a first haptic input from a user’s finger on a first area of the touchscreen and a second haptic input from another of the user’s fingers on a second area of the touchscreen. Claim 1 does not even require that these functions be performed as part of the task itself, and the subject matter argued by Applicant from the specification and drawings is not imported into the claims.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 integrates any abstract idea into a practical application on the basis that it “recites a method of providing training via visual elements for presentation to address maladaptive behaviors in users,” citing to the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed above, the functions of providing a series of indications to a user to perform a series of tasks “to be performed using at least one hand of the user to address a propensity for behavior associated with a condition of the user” fall within the scope of the abstract idea and do not constitute additional elements. Likewise, prompting the user to maintain their hand on a touchscreen and then “modifying the presentation of the visual element” while the user provides haptic input using first and second fingers falls within the abstract idea. Using a touchscreen and GUI to collect the input only amounts to mere instructions to implement the collection and GUI display using a generic touchscreen. None of the additional elements within the claims implicates an improvement to a technology or technical field, and claim 1 does not actually recite elements of “providing training via visual elements for presentation to address maladaptive behaviors in users.”
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 and are persuasive in part as addressed below. The rejection under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn in light of these amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Elantkowski.
Applicant argues starting on page 16 that Alailima does not disclose the newly introduced limitations reciting "receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display," "receiving a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display," and "modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display," as now recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in part, and maintains that Alailima discloses receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display, receiving a second haptic input from the user on the touchscreen display, and modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display.
With respect to receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display, paragraphs 59, 122, and 123 describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen, while 206, 208, and 210-211 describe the interface displaying interfaces which the user touches to perform various tasks including navigation tasks and tasks for selecting between different targets.
Paragraphs 39 and 59-62 further describe users providing touchscreen inputs during these tasks, along with multi-tasking tasks combining any of the task types into a primary task and a secondary task which “require multiple, substantially simultaneous responses from an individual.” Paragraphs 206, 208, and 210-213 then describe multi-task tasks combining such tasks while visual elements change on the screen. Examiner construes the disclosure of a task involving multiple tasks requiring simultaneous input, which may be in the form of tap or touch inputs, while graphical elements change on the screen as teaching a second haptic input from a finger of a hand of the user and modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display. Examiner notes that the claims do not recite any specific modification of the visual element or the modification having any relation to the first and second haptic inputs other than occurring while the first and second haptic inputs are received on the touchscreen display.
Examiner agrees that Alailima does not disclose the specific subject matter of receiving the second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display. However, this element is rejected in view of Elantkowski.
Applicant argues on page 18 that Elantkowski does not teach receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display, receiving a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display, and modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display. While Elantkowski is only relied upon to teach the second haptic input being from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions.
Figures 5A and 5B and paragraphs 6, 794, 947, 1000, and 1013 of Elantkowski 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, and expressly describe the task requiring the user to “place a first finger on a first point in the test image and a second finger on a second point in the test image, and pinching the first finger and the second finger together.” Examiner additionally notes that Figure 22 of Elantkowski shows a visual element being deformed, i.e. modified, while the haptic inputs are received.
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 a touchscreen display during a presentation of a visual element,
wherein prompting for the at least one hand of the user being maintained on the touchscreen display comprises:
receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user;
receiving a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user;
modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received.
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, and modifying a presented visual element in response to the user providing touch inputs with their fingers. 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 a touchscreen 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 a touchscreen display during a presentation of a visual element. This limitation does not actually recite the touchscreen display itself as being used to display the visual element or perform other functions.
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 elements of a) a computing system used to perform data analysis functions including identifying the session and providing the first, second, and third indications, b) a graphical user interface recited as “comprising one or more areas for placing one or more fingers of the at least one hand of the user,” and c) a touchscreen used to display the graphical user interface and receive the first and second haptic inputs.
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.
Paragraphs 52 and 248 describes a user device as including a smartphone or tablet computer, while paragraph 253 describes output devices as including a touchscreen. Figure 8 and paragraph 114 describe and show a user interface. The touchscreen is construed as encompassing a generic touchscreen element and the graphical user interface is construed as encompassing a displayed user interface having graphical elements.
Each of these elements 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 touchscreen display is similarly recited at a high level of generality as used to display the graphical user interface and receive the user touch input, and is disclosed broadly as generic types of touchscreens. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1 and 11 only recite the computing system, touchscreen, and graphical user interface as tools 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 the finger or the other finger of the at least one hand comprises at least one fingertip. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 22 and 24 recite wherein the finger or the other finger of the at least one hand comprises 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 previous rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendments submitted 5/8/2026.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alailima et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0261908) in view of Elantkowski et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0298964).
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 a touchscreen 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));
wherein prompting for the at least one hand of the user being maintained on the touchscreen display comprises:
displaying a graphical user interface on the touchscreen display comprising one or more areas for placing one or more fingers of the at least one hand of the user ([59], [122], and [123] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs with a finger on a touch-screen, while [206], [208], and [210]-[211] describe the interface displaying interfaces which the user touches to perform various tasks including navigation tasks and tasks for selecting between different targets. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit what constitutes one or more areas for placing one or more fingers, and that any area on the interface on which the user places one or more fingers satisfies this limitation);
receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display ([59], [122], and [123] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen, while [206], [208], and [210]-[211] describe the interface displaying interfaces which the user touches to perform various tasks including navigation tasks and tasks for selecting between different targets. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit what constitutes a first area of the touchscreen, and that any area of the touchscreen qualifies as a “first area”);
receiving a second haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on the touchscreen display ([39] and [59]-[62] describe users providing touch inputs to a touch screen during tasks such as targeting, navigation, and object recognition, along with multi-tasking tasks combining any of the task types into a primary task and a secondary task which “require multiple, substantially simultaneous responses from an individual”; [206], [208], and [210]-[213] describe multi-task tasks combining such tasks while visual elements change on the screen); and
modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display ([206], [208], and [210]-[213] describe receiving the inputs from multi-task tasks while visual elements change on the screen);
but does not expressly disclose:
receiving the second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display.
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, during a task being performed by a user, receive a first haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on a first area of a touchscreen display and a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display (Figures 5A and 5B, [6], [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; Figure 22 shows a visual element being modified while the haptic inputs are received).
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, during a task being performed by a user, receive a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display 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 receiving a second haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on the touchscreen display, and having the second haptic input from the user be from another finger of the user on a second area of the touchscreen 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 2, Alailima/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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/Elantkowski teach 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 a touchscreen 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));
wherein prompting for the at least one hand of the user being maintained on the touchscreen display comprises:
displaying a graphical user interface on the touchscreen display comprising one or more areas for placing one or more fingers of the at least one hand of the user ([59], [122], and [123] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs with a finger on a touch-screen, while [206], [208], and [210]-[211] describe the interface displaying interfaces which the user touches to perform various tasks including navigation tasks and tasks for selecting between different targets. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit what constitutes one or more areas for placing one or more fingers, and that any area on the interface on which the user places one or more fingers satisfies this limitation);
receiving a first haptic input from a finger of the at least one hand of the user on a first area of the touchscreen display ([59], [122], and [123] describe the user performing targeting or navigation tasks by touching, swiping, or providing other movement inputs on a touch-screen, while [206], [208], and [210]-[211] describe the interface displaying interfaces which the user touches to perform various tasks including navigation tasks and tasks for selecting between different targets. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit what constitutes a first area of the touchscreen, and that any area of the touchscreen qualifies as a “first area”);
receiving a second haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on the touchscreen display ([39] and [59]-[62] describe users providing touch inputs to a touch screen during tasks such as targeting, navigation, and object recognition, along with multi-tasking tasks combining any of the task types into a primary task and a secondary task which “require multiple, substantially simultaneous responses from an individual”; [206], [208], and [210]-[213] describe multi-task tasks combining such tasks while visual elements change on the screen); and
modifying the presentation of the visual element while the first haptic input and the second haptic input are received on the touchscreen display ([206], [208], and [210]-[213] describe receiving the inputs from multi-task tasks while visual elements change on the screen);
but does not expressly disclose:
receiving the second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display.
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, during a task being performed by a user, receive a first haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on a first area of a touchscreen display and a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display (Figures 5A and 5B, [6], [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; Figure 22 shows a visual element being modified while the haptic inputs are received).
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, during a task being performed by a user, receive a second haptic input from another finger of the at least one hand of the user on a second area of the touchscreen display 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 receiving a second haptic input from a finger of at least one hand of the user on the touchscreen display, and having the second haptic input from the user be from another finger of the user on a second area of the touchscreen 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 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.
With respect to claim 21, Alailima discloses the method of claim 1. Alailima does not expressly disclose wherein the finger or the other finger of the at least one hand comprises 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 the finger or the other finger of the at least one hand comprises 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.
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) in view of Elantkowski et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0298964) 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/Elantkowski teach 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 combination of Alailima and Elantkowski 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 and Elantkowski already teach 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 the combination of Alailima and Elantkowski, 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) in view of Elantkowski et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0298964) 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/Elantkowski teach 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 combination of Alailima and Elantkowski 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 and Elantkowski already teach 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 the combination of Alailima and Elantkowski, 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.
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).
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
Prosecution Insights