Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The Objection to the specification is withdrawn based on the newly added specification.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Aragones fails to disclose an avatar based on a determination that the user is deviating or is likely to deviate based on historical data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Aragones clearly discloses that the system can determine performance data for all embodiments based on historical data (e.g. ¶70) and then determines whether the user is adhering or likely to adhere to the defined program using the performance data, sensed data and then displays it via the avatar (e.g. ¶¶79, 87 and 89). Therefore, since Aragones clearly discloses the claimed invention, the rejections stand.
Regarding the 103 rejection, the Applicant argues that the Schiff reference fails to cure the deficiencies in the Aragones reference and therefore, the rejections are invalid. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons above. Therefore, the rejections stand.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/21/26 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 2-5, 8-13 and 16-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Aragones et al. (U.S. Pat. 2012/0271143 hereinafter “Aragones”).
Regarding claims 2, 9-10 and 16-17, Aragones discloses a system and method comprising: a processor (e.g. 106); and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (e.g. 108), comprising: monitoring user adherence to a defined program followed by a user based on feedback information associated with performance of the defined program by the user, wherein the feedback information is generated by one or more sensors (¶28), received over the course of the defined program, wherein the feedback information comprises at least one of physiological movement information related to the user, physiological information related to the user, or context information regarding a context of the user (e.g. Figs. 1, 10a-10b; ¶¶ 28, 79, 87, 89); and determining whether the user is adhering to or is likely to adhere to the one or more requirements of the defined program based on feedback information and historical data related to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 70, 79, 87, 89); determining, based on comparison of the one or more feature values to the respective reference metrics and based on the historical data, whether the user is adhering to or is likely to adhere to one or more requirements of the defined program (e.g. ¶¶ 70, 79, 87, 89); and generating, based on a determination that the user is adhering to or is likely to adhere to the one or more requirements of the defined program, a reaction to be performed by an avatar presented to the user via a device (e.g. Figs. 3A-3B; ¶¶ 6, 13, 19, 29, 71, 73, 86, 88) and executing the reaction via the avatar (e.g. Figs. 3A-3B; ¶¶ 6, 13, 19, 29, 71, 73, 86, 88).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18, Aragones further discloses wherein based on a determination that the user is deviating or is likely to deviate from one or more requirements of the defined program, the operations further comprise: determining a reaction to be performed by an avatar presented to the user via a device, wherein the reaction comprises at least one of a visual cue or verbal cue; and utilizing an inference component to provide real-time customized instruction via the avatar to facilitate the user adherence (e.g. Figs. 3A-3B; ¶¶ 6, 13, 19, 29, 71, 73, 86, 88).
Regarding claims 4, Aragones further discloses wherein the context information comprises at least one of a current location or one or more entities or a current time and date (e.g. ¶¶ 28, 30 and 33).
Regarding claims 5, 12-13 and 19, Aragones further discloses wherein the physical movement information comprises at least a current behavior being performed by the user as part of the defined program (e.g. Figs. 1, 10a-10b; ¶¶ 28, 79, 87, 89).
Regarding claim 8, Aragones further discloses wherein the physiological information further comprises biometric information about the user (e.g. ¶28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aragones as applied to claim 2-5, 8-13 and 16-19 above, and further in view of Schiff et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0095863 hereinafter “Schiff”).
Regarding claims 6-7, 14-15 and 20, Aragones discloses the claimed invention except for the use of rule-based classification schemes to analyze behavior data for analysis. However, Schiff teaches that it is known to use of rule-based classification with feature value ranges as set forth in Paragraphs 34, 55, 64 and 74 to provide recommendation and analysis based on behaviors to enhance the analysis by merging data sources. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Aragones, with rule based classification techniques with feature value ranges as taught by Schiff, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using machine learning to enhance and speed up the merging of data sources to provide an accurate analysis of behavior.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Karkanias et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,612,363 – Cited IDS filed 10/10/24) – discloses a similar avatar system utilizing sensed physical characteristics. However, Karkania fails to determine adherence via historical data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REX R HOLMES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights