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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the period". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear why activating one or more StimGs comprises activating “a” StimG, is it different from the one or more StimGs being activated? Examiner asks the Applicant to provide further clarification. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets activating the StimG for a specified time.
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 14-23 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as an article of manufacture (claims 14-23). Accordingly, claims 14-23 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 14 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions that when executed cause a processor at a user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS):
i. to activate a stimulation-generator (StimG) from one or more StimGs according to a protocol of a treatment for treating brain-functionality-decline (BFD);
ii. to read indication of a sensor from one or more types-of- Sensors (ToS); and
iii. to determine how to continue the treatment of the BFD.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because it is giving treatment to a user according to rules/instructions in a protocol.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because determination of continued treatment of BFD based on sensor readings can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions that when executed cause a processor at a user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 44, 49):
i. to activate a stimulation-generator (StimG) from one or more StimGs according to a protocol of a treatment for treating brain-functionality-decline (BFD);
ii. to read indication of a sensor from one or more types-of- Sensors (ToS); and
iii. to determine how to continue the treatment of the BFD.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 15: The claim specifies the protocol to be a sequence, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 16: The claim specifies activating StimGs by changing the setting, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17: The claim specifies BFD determine based on reading indication from the sensors, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 18: The claim specifies activating the StimGs further comprising updating the protocol by replacing the setting, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: The claim specifies updated protocol sent to server, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20: The claim specifies sensor to be a biosensor, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 21: The claim specifies the bio sensor measuring pupils, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 22: The claim specifies the bio sensor to measure cortisol, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 23: The claim specifies further activating a VR system, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent Claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as activating StimG, read sensors e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 15-16 and 18-19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 16, 18 (activating StimG changing the setting), 19 (send to server), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 15 (protocols), 18 (changing the protocol with settings), e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 14-23
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachs et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0302825).
As per claim 1, Sachs teaches a user's-wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) comprising:
-a user's-wellbeing-improving-controller (UWIC) (Sachs: para. 62; Device providing therapy.);
-one or more stimulus-generators (StimG) (Sachs: para. 12); and
-one or more types of sensors (ToS) (Sachs: para. 14);
-wherein the system is configured to treat brain-functionality- decline (BFD) (Sachs: abstract; para. 86; Therapy for psychological treatment.).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the UWIC is configured to activate the one or more StimGs according to a protocol (Sachs: para. 91; Therapy setting to relevant sensory stimulation.).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 2 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the protocol define a sequence of activating the one or more StimGs (Sachs: para. 90-91).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 3 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein activating the one or more StimGs comprises the period of activating a StimG from the one or more StimGs (Sachs: para. 81; para. 85; Therapy sessions with sensory stimulation include a specified time interval or time period.).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 1 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the one or more ToSs comprises at least one bio sensor (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 5 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises heart pulse rate sensor (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 5 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises a sensor for measuring the size of the pupils (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 5 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises a sensor for measuring the concentration of the Cortisol in the body liquids of the user (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the UWIS further comprising a virtual-reality (VR) system (Sachs: para. 165; para. 175; Providing therapy through virtual reality device.).
As per claim 10, the system of claim 1 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the one or more ToSs comprises at least one neuro sensor (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 10 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one neuro sensor comprises sensor that measure brain waves (Sachs: para. 14; Measuring nerve activity.).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 1 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the (UWIS) is configured to communicate with a wellbeing-improving cloud (WIC) (Sachs: para. 98).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 12 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the WIC comprises:
-a wellbeing server (WS) (Sachs: para. 98);
-a cloud-communication-module (CCM) (Sachs: para. 220);
-a Group-Protocol-DBs (GPDB) (Sachs: para. 98; content database); and
-a cloud-storage-volume (CSV) (Sachs: para. 220);
-wherein the WS is configured to generate one or more protocols to be used for treating BFD of one or more users (Sachs: para. 91; Therapy setting to relevant sensory stimulation.).
As per claim 14, Sachs teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions that when executed cause a processor at a user's- wellbeing-improving-system (UWIS) (Sachs: para. 221):
i. to activate a stimulation-generator (StimG) from one or more StimGs according to a protocol of a treatment for treating brain-functionality- decline (BFD) (Sachs: para. 95; Therapy setting to relevant sensory stimulation.);
ii. to read indication of a sensor from one or more types-of- Sensors (ToS) (Sachs: para. 14); and
iii. to determine how to continue the treatment of the BFD (Sachs: para. 99; Select therapy stimulation.).
As per claim 15, the computer readable storage device of claim 14 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the protocol defines a sequence of activating the one or more StimGs (Sachs: Sachs: para. 81; para. 85; Therapy sessions with sensory stimulation include a specified time interval or time period.).
As per claim 16, the computer readable storage device of claim 15 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein activating the one or more StimGs comprises changing the setting of a StimG from the one or more StimGs looking for a value of BFD that is better than the value of BFD that was obtained when the setting of the StimG from the one or more StimGs is according to the protocol (Sachs: para. 85; titrating time for sensory stimulation.).
As per claim 17, the computer readable storage device of claim 16 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the BFD is determined based on reading the indication from the one or more ToSs (Sachs: 85; Based on receptivity to the sensory stimulation.).
As per claim 18, the computer readable storage device of claim 16 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the activating the one or more StimGs further comprising update the protocol, into updated protocol, by replacing the setting of the StimG, from the one or more StimGs, with the setting that is associated with the value of BFD that is better than the value of BFD when the setting of the StimG, from the one or more StimGs, is according to the protocol (Sachs: para. 85; titrating time for sensory stimulation.).
As per claim 19, the computer readable storage device of claim 18 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the updated protocol is sent toward a wellbeing server (Sachs: para. 85-86).
As per claim 20, the computer readable storage device of claim 14 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the one or more ToSs comprises at least one bio sensor (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 21, the computer readable storage device of claim 20 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises a sensor for measuring the size of the pupils (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 22, the computer readable storage device of claim 20 is as described. Sachs further teaches wherein the at least one bio sensor comprises a sensor for measuring the concentration of the Cortisol in the body liquids of the user (Sachs: para. 14).
As per claim 23, the computer readable storage device of claim 14 is as described. Sachs further teaches further comprising instructions to activate a VR system (Sachs: para. 165; para. 175; Providing therapy through virtual reality device.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breton et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2024/0032833 – Teaches a system to recommend VR therapy.
Rezai et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0162216 – Teaches a system for providing brain stimulation to improve patient’s addiction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681