DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must
be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification inconsistently uses “e.g.” within and not within parentheses. Conventional practice is to use this within parentheses so that it is clear what is exampled.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites multiple limitations, but lumps them all together. This is inconsistent with the other claims that recite multiple limitations and follow conventional practice by which beginning each limitation on a separate line. Uniformity is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what the “circuitry” is that is “configured to recommend media for the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session based on a predicted responsiveness of the patient to the media, wherein the media for the virtual therapy session comprises a plurality of virtual videos that are combined together into a playlist for the patient”. The disclosure is silent regarding any explicit recitation or description of hardware that this circuitry is. In contrast, the only disclosure provided is, at best, in the form of software, which is not circuitry. See, for example, at least para. 60 which recites “a recommendation engine of the system (e.g., an artificial intelligence and/or machine learning recommendation engine, or AI/ML engine)” and para. and 64 which recites “a software-implemented algorithm (e.g., an AI/ML algorithm configured to make recommendations; an AI/ML recommendation engine as an AI/ML model optionally a linear regression model)”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claim 7 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “circuitry configured to recommend media for the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session based on a predicted responsiveness of the patient to the media, wherein the media for the virtual therapy session comprises a plurality of virtual videos that are combined together into a playlist for the patient” in claim 6 and “wherein the predicted responsiveness of the patient is based at least in part on a previous responsiveness of the patient to the media and/or another media, and/or a previous responsiveness of another patient to the media and/or another media” in claim 7 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this is performed in results-based language without describing the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least 60, 64, 99, 172, 173. For instance, while para. 172 and 173 merely recite similar language as the claims, para. 60, 64, and 99 generically recite, results-based language, the mere use of an “artificial intelligence and/or machine learning engine (AI/ML engine)” or “AI/ML algorithm” which is recited to optionally be a linear regression model without any description of any parameters of the AI/ML engine/algorithm used. Thus, the disclosure is silent regarding any substantive details of any algorithm used to perform the claimed operations. Dependent claim 7 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-20 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and products which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system for mental healthcare management for a patient in need thereof, the system comprising:
circuitry configured to simultaneously administer:
a virtual therapy session to a patient device; and
a virtual therapy management session to a practitioner device;
wherein the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session are operably connected for exchange of data therebetween for an experience of virtual therapy by a patient and management of the experience by the patient, a practitioner, or both.
Independent claim 8 recites:
A patient device configured for virtual therapy, the patient device comprising:
circuitry configured to access a virtual therapy session of a system for mental healthcare management; and
circuitry configured to depict media and practitioner input of the virtual therapy session to a patient.
Independent claim 13 recites:
A practitioner device configured for virtual therapy management, the practitioner device comprising:
circuitry configured to access a virtual therapy management session of a system for mental healthcare management; and
circuitry configured to depict media and patient input of the virtual therapy management session to a practitioner.
Independent claim 17 recites:
A method for mental healthcare management, the method comprising:
depicting, to a patient and a practitioner, media for virtual therapy for the patient;
receiving, from the patient, patient input related to an experience of the virtual therapy by the patient; and
providing, by the practitioner, practitioner input related to the experience of the virtual therapy by the patient.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as it is merely managing a therapy session between a patient and a practitioner. The receiving, providing, normalizing, quantifying, and recommending steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. It is further noted that the mere act of inputting a proof of purchase and then providing the purchased product (i.e., purchasing the activity pack and unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity) is also a certain method of organizing human activity because it is merely a traditional commercial interaction. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Lastly, the normalizing and quantifying steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system (claims 1, 8, and 13); various “circuitry” recited in means-plus-function format (claims 1, 2, 8, and 13); a patient device (claims 1, 8, and 13); a practitioner device (claims 1, 8, and 13); reciting the therapy session as “virtual” (claims 1, 8, and 16), reciting the therapy management session as “virtual” (claims 1 and 13); reciting therapy as “virtual” (claim 17); reciting cognitive behavioral therapy as “virtual” (claim 19); reciting coaching and/or therapy as “virtual” (claim 19); and reciting the patient device is a smartphone, an augmented reality (AR) device, and/or a virtual reality (VR) device (claim 12). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed. See, for example, at least Fig. 1-4C and 7 which illustrate the components as stock images and non-descript black boxes in a conventional arrangement, and at least para. 10-12, 39, 41-59, and 166-186 of the published specification merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement. Furthermore, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. In particular, the claims and disclosure as a whole identify that the system and its elements are merely used as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Similarly, the courts have repeatedly identified that mere receiving and transmitting data over a network is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, para. 39 of the published specification explicitly identifies that “the terms ‘therapy,’ ‘therapy session,’ and ‘immersive therapy session,’ ‘coaching session,’ ‘counseling session,’ and the like, and a system and/or a device of the present disclosure for the purpose of maintaining or improving mental or behavioral health of the person, and includes but is not limited to psychotherapy, coaching, counseling, group therapy, psychoeducation, and the like.” Similarly, para. 54 of the published specification also recites that “the systems, devices, and methods of the disclosure are useful for any of a variety of mental health conditions and situations”. Thus, even the claimed references to “therapy” do not necessarily refer to any actual therapy, let alone any particular treatment for a disease or medical condition. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the systems and the process they perform do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. The claim does not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. This is evidenced by the lack of significant structure in the figures (i.e., Fig. 1-4C and 7 merely illustrate the components as stock images and non-descript black boxes in a conventional arrangement) and the generic nature in which any structural items are described in the claims and the published specification (see, for example, para. 10-12, 39, 41-59, and 166-186). In particular, many of these paragraphs explicitly identify that the claimed elements may be any device in any arrangement for performing the claimed functions and at least para. 46 and 166 of the published specification explicitly identifies that the steps of the process are not limited to being carried out in any particular sequence or order. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Javanbakht (US 2018/0068577).
Regarding claim 1, Javanbakht teaches a system for mental healthcare management for a patient in need thereof, the system comprising:
circuitry configured to simultaneously administer:
a virtual therapy session to a patient device (Javanbakht, para. 16, “The system may include an augmented reality device with a user interface, a processor, and memory having a program communicatively connected to the processor.”); and
a virtual therapy management session to a practitioner device (Javanbakht, para. 16, “A transceiver may be communicatively connected to a local or remote practitioner device for real-time guidance from a practitioner.”);
wherein the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session are operably connected for exchange of data therebetween for an experience of virtual therapy by a patient and management of the experience by the patient, a practitioner, or both (Javanbakht, para. 16, “The system may include an augmented reality device with a user interface, a processor, and memory having a program communicatively connected to the processor. A transceiver may be communicatively connected to a local or remote practitioner device for real-time guidance from a practitioner. Alternatively or in addition, the system may include a plurality of sensors and a feedback device in communication with the processor. The system may display or present one or more guidance objects such as initial and updated guidance objects in response to the practitioner device or sensor outputs of the plurality of sensors. The feedback device may provide at least one of audio, visual, and tactile feedback in response to practitioner device or the sensors. The guidance objects may be associated with a treatment plan for a desired reaction of the user.”).
Regarding claim 5, Javanbakht teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
circuitry configured for simultaneous transmission of media to both the patient device and the practitioner device (Javanbakht, para. 36, “FIGS. 2-4 respectively illustrate exemplary display screens 200, 300, and 400 as part of user interface 114, e.g., to receive and display guidance information between users 101 and 103.”);
wherein the media is depicted to the patient and the practitioner via the patient device and the practitioner device, respectively, during the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session, respectively (Javanbakht, para. 36, “FIGS. 2-4 respectively illustrate exemplary display screens 200, 300, and 400 as part of user interface 114, e.g., to receive and display guidance information between users 101 and 103.”).
Regarding claim 6, Javanbakht teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
circuitry configured to recommend media for the virtual therapy session and the virtual therapy management session based on a predicted responsiveness of the patient to the media (Javanbakht, para. 68, “the processor 106 of device 102 or 104, or server 105 in communication with device 102 or 104 by way of network 120, may generate, and store as guidance information by way of memory 108 or database 122, an updated guidance object in response to the comparison of the first reaction and the desired reaction.”), wherein the media for the virtual therapy session comprises a plurality of virtual videos that are combined together into a playlist for the patient (Javanbakht, para. 18, “generate and communicate guidance information such as user guidance information including, for example, initial and updated guidance objects,… video… feedback.”)).
Regarding claim 7, Javanbakht teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the predicted responsiveness of the patient is based at least in part on a previous responsiveness of the patient to the media and/or another media, and/or a previous responsiveness of another patient to the media and/or another media (Javanbakht, para. 68, “the processor 106 of device 102 or 104, or server 105 in communication with device 102 or 104 by way of network 120, may generate, and store as guidance information by way of memory 108 or database 122, an updated guidance object in response to the comparison of the first reaction and the desired reaction.”).
Regarding claim 8, Javanbakht teaches a patient device configured for virtual therapy (Fig. 1, User Device 104a-b coinciding with patient as User 103), the patient device comprising:
circuitry configured to access a virtual therapy session of a system for mental healthcare management (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, Processor 106, Memory 108, Program 110, Transceiver 112, User Interface 114, Connections 124; para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103”); and
circuitry configured to depict media and practitioner input of the virtual therapy session to a patient (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103… guidance window 204 displaying user 101 or 103 (e.g., a practitioner providing guidance to the patient)”. User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claim 13, Javanbakht teaches a practitioner device configured for virtual therapy management (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, User Device 102a-c coinciding with practitioner as User 101), the practitioner device comprising:
circuitry configured to access a virtual therapy management session of a system for mental healthcare management (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, Processor 106, Memory 108, Program 110, Transceiver 112, User Interface 114, Connections 124; para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103”. User 101 is the practitioner and User 103 is the patient.); and
circuitry configured to depict media and patient input of the virtual therapy management session to a practitioner (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Javanbakht teaches the patient device of claim 8 and the practitioner device of claim 14, wherein the patient device further comprises circuitry configured to receive a patient input from a patient and transmit the patient input to the system, whereby the patient input is accessible to the practitioner device in real-time with the virtual therapy management session (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Javanbakht teaches the patient device of claim 9 and the practitioner device of claim 13, wherein the practitioner device further comprises circuitry configured to receive a practitioner input from a practitioner and transmit the practitioner input to the system, whereby the practitioner input is accessible to the patient device in real-time with the virtual therapy session (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claim 11, Javanbakht teaches the patient device of claim 8, wherein the patient device comprises at least one processor and at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, Processor 106, Memory 108, Program 110; para. 31, “Computing systems and/or devices generally include computer-executable instructions, where the instructions may define operations and may be executable by one or more devices such as those listed herein.”) which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
access the virtual therapy session of the system for mental healthcare management (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.); and
depict media and practitioner input of the virtual therapy session to the patient (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.); and optionally:
receive the patient input from the patient and transmit the patient input to the system (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claim 16, Javanbakht teaches the practitioner device of claim 13, wherein the practitioner device comprises at least one processor and at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions (Javanbakht, Fig. 1, Processor 106, Memory 108, Program 110; para. 31, “Computing systems and/or devices generally include computer-executable instructions, where the instructions may define operations and may be executable by one or more devices such as those listed herein.”) which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
access the virtual therapy management session of the system for mental healthcare management (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.); and
depict media and patient input of the virtual therapy session to the practitioner (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.); and optionally:
receive the practitioner input from the practitioner and transmit the practitioner input to the system (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.).
Regarding claim 12, Javanbakht teaches the patient device of claim 8, wherein the patient device is a smartphone, an augmented reality (AR) device, and/or a virtual reality (VR) device (Javanbakht, para. 19, “Device 104 may include any or all of device 104a (e.g., an augmented reality device) and device 104b (e.g., a mobile or cellular device).” Para. 22, “The devices 102 and 104 may include any computing device such as include a mobile device, cellular phone, smartphone, smartwatch, activity tracker, tablet computer, next generation portable device, handheld computer, notebook, laptop, projector device (e.g., three-dimensional holographic or hologram projector), or virtual reality or augmented reality device.”).
Regarding claim 17, Javanbakht teaches a method for mental healthcare management, the method comprising:
depicting, to a patient and a practitioner, media for virtual therapy for the patient (Javanbakht, para. 16, “The system may include an augmented reality device with a user interface, a processor, and memory having a program communicatively connected to the processor. A transceiver may be communicatively connected to a local or remote practitioner device for real-time guidance from a practitioner. Alternatively or in addition, the system may include a plurality of sensors and a feedback device in communication with the processor. The system may display or present one or more guidance objects such as initial and updated guidance objects in response to the practitioner device or sensor outputs of the plurality of sensors. The feedback device may provide at least one of audio, visual, and tactile feedback in response to practitioner device or the sensors. The guidance objects may be associated with a treatment plan for a desired reaction of the user.”);
receiving, from the patient, patient input related to an experience of the virtual therapy by the patient (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103.”); and
providing, by the practitioner, practitioner input related to the experience of the virtual therapy by the patient (Javanbakht, para. 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates display screen 200 to be displayed on user interface 114, e.g., for receiving inputs and displaying outputs between users 101 and 103, e.g., for treating a physical, mental, or psychological disorder of user 103… guidance window 204 displaying user 101 or 103 (e.g., a practitioner providing guidance to the patient)”.).
Regarding claim 18, Javanbakht teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the virtual therapy comprises stress inoculation therapy and wherein the experience of the media by the patient is experiential or relaxational (Javanbakht, para. 45, “The guidance object may also include safe cues that resemble some but not all of the features of the cue or trigger that initiates a fear reaction in patient (e.g., with PTSD), e.g., a loud noise, people arguing, lightning, children playing guns, or carrion”); wherein the practitioner input comprises selection of media for virtual therapy for the patient (Javanbakht, para. 39, “User 101 or 103 by way of user interface 114 may identify one or more guidance objects to be displayed by user interface 114, e.g., for exposure treatment that displays an object, person, or situation which is feared, avoided, or craved by user 103.” User 101 is the practitioner and user 103 is the patient.) .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht as applied to claim 1, in view of Rothman (US 2018/0301221).
Regarding claims 2-4, Javanbakht teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
(claim 2) circuitry configured to:
receive values of healthcare parameters of the patient (Javanbakht, at least para. 26 and 27 discuss receiving values of healthcare parameters of the patient).
(claim 4) circuitry configured to receive an input from the practitioner device for management of a care plan for the patient based at least in part on the health status (Javanbakht, para. 68, “At block 608, the processor 106 of device 102 or 104, or server 105 in communication with device 102 or 104 by way of network 120, may generate, and store as guidance information by way of memory 108 or database 122, an updated guidance object in response to the comparison of the first reaction and the desired reaction.”).
Javanbakht does not explicitly teach
(claim 2) normalize the values of healthcare parameters; and quantify a health status of the patient based on the normalized values.
(claim 3) wherein the health status of the patient is a numerical score that results from summation of the normalized values of the healthcare parameters.
(claim 4) circuitry configured to receive an input from the patient device in response to at least one survey for values of healthcare parameters and the health status.
However, in a related art, Rothman teaches (claim 2) normalize the values of healthcare parameters (Rothman, Abstract, “The collected data may be calibrated, normalized, and analyzed to generate and track health scores associated the patient.”); and
quantify a health status of the patient based on the normalized values (Rothman, Abstract, “The collected data may be calibrated, normalized, and analyzed to generate and track health scores associated the patient.” Para. 50, “The health scores may serve as indicators of the health status of the patient 202.”).
(claim 3) wherein the health status of the patient is a numerical score that results from summation of the normalized values of the healthcare parameters (Rothman, para. 74, “the combination module 250 may take the sum of each of the single-variable risks given by the transformed health scores. The combination module 250 may combine the transformed health score values and scale them, so that they span a given range.”).
(claim 4) circuitry configured to receive an input from the patient device in response to at least one survey for values of healthcare parameters and the health status (Rothman, para. 41, “Patient queries may be presented to the patient 202 via a user interface associated with a computing machine or telephone to obtain patient query responses.” Para. 45, “The collected patient data may include patient query responses provided by the patient 202 in response to patent queries. The patient queries issued to the patient 202 can elicit a self-assessment from the patient 202 regarding their health or wellbeing. For example, the patient queries may interview the patient 202 about pain levels, activity levels, medication compliance, sleep quality, sleep duration, food intake, restroom visits, or other questions regarding general wellbeing. The patient queries may also question the patient 202 regarding self measurement of various physiological quantifies such as weight, temperature, blood pressure, blood sugar, pulse oximetry, and so forth. The patient queries may also present the patient 202 with assessment questions seeking to determine state of mind, mental acuity, attention, alertness, other psychological or other emotional qualities of the patient 202.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the healthcare parameters in Javanbakht to be normalized to quantify a health status of the patient as taught by Rothman because “monitoring of the health score system outputs by the recipients can significantly improve patient outcomes.” See Rothman at para. 55.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht as applied to claim 17, in view of Carbis (US 2006/0247489).
Regarding claim 19, Javanbakht teaches the 17, wherein the virtual therapy comprises:
virtual cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for inoculating the patient against stress and/or developing stress management techniques by the patient (Javanbakht, para. 15, “An exemplary system may be utilized to treat any type of physical, mental, or psychological disorder or encourage any type of physical or mental reaction or learning in response to guidance objects. A system may be configured to treat, for example, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, any anxiety disorder, drug additions, specific phobias, social phobia, emotional trauma, behavioral additions, and fears associated with animals, flight, height, or any other object or situation.”);
virtual coaching and/or therapy for guiding and/or preparing the patient, wherein the coaching and/or therapy comprises psychoeducation tours or other media (Javanbakht, para. 43, “The guidance indicators 208 may include guidance indicator 208a (e.g., guiding the user 103 forward or directly toward the augmented reality image in response to the practitioner by the videoconference or the sensors 116 measuring a user reaction indicating a high level of learning for user 103),”).
Javanbakht does not explicitly teach virtual coaching and/or therapy for preparing the patient for preconception, birthing, and/or postpartum.
However, in a related art, Carbis teaches virtual coaching and/or therapy for preparing the patient for preconception, birthing, and/or postpartum (Carbis, para. 9, “guided imagery or meditation in a virtual environment is used for, but not limited to,… childbirth, anesthesia,… somatic and/or psychosomatic diseases, physical trauma, grief, phobias, wound dressing changes and mood and behavioral disorders.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javanbakht as applied to claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Javanbakht teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the patient has or is at risk of having a mood and anxiety disorder and wherein the virtual therapy averts development or progression of the mood and anxiety disorder in the patient (Javanbakht, para. 15, “A system may be configured to treat, for example, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, any anxiety disorder, drug additions, specific phobias, social phobia, emotional trauma, behavioral additions, and fears associated with animals, flight, height, or any other object or situation.”).
Javanbakht does not explicitly teach that the mood and anxiety disorder is a perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the mood and anxiety disorder to be a perinatal mood and anxiety disorder (PMAD) because Javanbakht is “configured to treat… any anxiety disorder”. See Javanbakht at para. 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bro (US 5,722,418) discloses the use of virtual reality for stress inoculation training for aspects of childbirth has been known at least since the mid-1990s.
Hendler et al. (US 2021/0259615) discloses the use of virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and machine learning for stress inoculation training.
Derickson and Hilliard (US 2022/0108622) discloses augmented, virtual, mixed, and extended reality (AR, VR, MR, XR) and machine learning for stress inoculation training.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights