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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 17 February 2018 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/971,822 filed on 21 August 2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 received on 11 December 2024 are currently pending and being considered by Examiner in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and the cited foreign patents and non-patent literature references were previously received in parent Application No. 16/971,822. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 & 9, the claims recite “a controller configured to provide one or more of the at least one or more non-numerical input…” rather than “a controller configured to provide one or more of the at least one or more non-numerical inputs…”;
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “where in the one or more inputs…” rather than “wherein the one or more inputs…”;
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the output provided by the display comprises an progressive visual narrative” instead of “the output provided by the display comprises a progressive visual narrative”;
Regarding claims 2-8 & 10-16, these claims are dependent from claims 1 & 9 and therefore inherit the deficiencies therein by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claim 15-16 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 claims 15-16, the claims recite "the platform". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, as independent claim 9 and/or claims 15-16 do not recite “a platform”. For purposes of compact prosecution and analysis, claim 15 will be interpreted to instead recite “…each time the user is positioned on a platform independent from measuring the weight”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Anticipatory Non-statutory Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3, & 7-8 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364. This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below. That is, while claim 1 of pending Application 18/914,033 recites somewhat different wording from the limitations found in reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (e.g. “input mechanism configured to receive one or more inputs from the user”), reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 still anticipates said limitations via the bolded portions below.
Claim 1 of instantly pending Application 18/914,033
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (substantially similar wording is bolded)
A device for weight management comprising:
A device for weight management comprising:
a platform;
a platform;
a weight sensor configured to measure a weight of a user when the user is positioned on the platform;
a weight sensor configured to measure a weight of a user when the user is positioned on the platform;
an input mechanism configured to receive one or more inputs from the user, the one or more inputs comprising at least one non-numerical input to be provided by the weight management system;
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on a display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more user inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first second and third settings;
a controller configured to provide one or more of the at least one non-numerical input when the user is positioned on the platform; and
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on a display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more user inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first second and third settings;
a display configured to provide the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from the controller as an output to the user.
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on a display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more user inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first second and third settings;
Regarding claim 1 of instantly pending application 18/914,033, due to overwhelming similarities in claimed subject matter and scope, claim 1 of instantly pending application 18/914,033 and reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 are not patentably distinct from each other, i.e. claim 1 of instantly pending application 18/914,033 is anticipated by reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364. Therefore, claim 1 of the instantly pending application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364.
Regarding Claims 3 & 7-8 of instantly pending application 18/914,033, claims 3 & 7-8 are also anticipated by reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364, due to dependency from claim 1 of instantly pending application 18/914,033 and overwhelming similarities in claimed subject matter and scope with reference claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364. Therefore, claim 3 & 7-8 of the instantly pending application are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364.
Claim 3 of instantly pending Application 18/914,033
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (substantially similar wording is bolded)
The device of claim 1, wherein
A device for weight management comprising:
the controller is configured to provide one or more of the at least one non-numerical input when the user is positioned on the platform and without a weight measurement being taken
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on the display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first, second, and third settings;
the controller is configured to obtain a weight measurement from the user positioned on the platform without providing the weight measurement to the user;
Claim 7 of instantly pending Application 18/914,033
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (substantially similar wording is bolded)
The device of claim 1, wherein
A device for weight management comprising:
the output provided by the display is provided fewer times than the weight measurement is taken
a weight sensor configured to measure a weight of a user when the user is positioned on the platform;
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on a display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more user inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first, second, and third settings
Claim 8 of instantly pending Application 18/914,033
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (substantially similar wording is bolded)
The device of claim 1, wherein
A device for weight management comprising:
the output provided by the display comprises a progressive visual narrative
a controller configured to provide non-numerical feedback when the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is provided on a display fewer times than the user is positioned on the platform, wherein the non-numerical feedback is customized based on one or more user inputs, wherein the controller is configured to have first second and third settings;
the one or more non-numerical outputs are a visual narrative that progresses through a story each time the user is positioned on the platform independent from measuring the weight
Obviousness Non-statutory Double Patenting
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364, in view of Daniels et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090178858), hereinafter “Daniels”. This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below. That is, while claim 9 of pending Application 18/914,033 recites somewhat different wording from the limitations found in reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (e.g. “input mechanism configured to receive one or more inputs from the user”), reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 and Daniels still render obvious said limitations of claim 9 via the bolded portions below.
Claim 9 of instantly pending Application 18/914,033
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 (substantially similar wording is bolded)
A method of weight management comprising:
A method for managing weight comprising:
obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user;
See Daniels Par [0031] which discloses prompting the user to enter a goal, i.e. target, weight using the input device
measuring a weight of the user;
measuring a patient’s weight with the weight management device of claim 1;
converting the measuring weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data;
See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018], [0023], & [0034]-[0035] which describe a user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss and the weight scale with a differential display calculating the difference between the user’s current weight and a stored weight value and then utilizing a converter to convert a number/weight to an output which is displayed to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0048] which specifically discloses that the output may be a progress bar as a goal progress indicator or simply an indicator that a goal has been attained or not yet been attained rather than a numeric/weight output.
providing the non-numerical output to the user without providing the measured weight to the user; and
providing the one or more non-numerical outputs to the patient on the display of the weight management device, wherein the one or more non-numerical outputs are entirely unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user; and sending the weight measurement to medical personnel without providing the weight measurement to the patient.
providing supportive feedback to the user that is unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user.
providing the one or more non-numerical outputs to the patient on the display of the weight management device, wherein the one or more non-numerical outputs are entirely unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user;
Regarding claim 9 of instantly pending application 18/914,033, due to overwhelming similarities in claimed subject matter and scope, claim 9 of instantly pending application 18/914,033 and reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364 are not patentably distinct from each other, i.e. claim 9 of instantly pending application 18/914,033 is rendered obvious by reference claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364, in view of Daniels. Therefore, claim 9 of the instantly pending application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12/142,364.
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 1-16 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. (Note: claim 16 represents patent-eligible subject matter as further explained below)
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 9-16) and a machine (claims 1-8) (Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Test Step 1 for claims 1-16: Yes) which recite steps of:
obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user;
measuring a weight of a user when the user is positioned on the platform;
receiving one or more inputs from the user, the one or more inputs comprising at least one non-numerical input to be provided by the weight management system;
converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data;
providing one or more of the at least one non-numerical input when the user is positioned on the platform; and
providing the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from the controller as an output to the user;
providing supportive feedback to the user that is unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user.
These steps of measuring a weight of a user, receiving one or more inputs from the user, providing one or more of the non-numerical outputs, converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data, providing the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from to the user, and providing supportive feedback to the user that is unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the measuring a weight of a user and receiving one or more inputs from the user language, measuring a weight of the user in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of a doctor or other entity collecting a patient’s weight upon the patient stepping on a scale. Similarly, the limitation of receiving one or more inputs from the user, the inputs comprising at least one non-numerical input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, such as a doctor or user inquiring a patient about other factors regarding their health or weight that is not related to numerical inputs/outputs. For example, but for the providing one or more of the non-numerical inputs/supportive feedback language such as to promote a positive mindset for the user, providing inputs to the user in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of an entity/doctor presenting information to the patient and/or user relating to said non-numerical inputs. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of measuring a weight of a user, receiving one or more inputs from the user, providing one or more of the non-numerical outputs, converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data, providing the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from to the user, and providing supportive feedback to the user that is unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, include methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04 describes various methods of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As a direct result of the steps set forth in the independent claims, the user’s behaviors regarding capturing and management of said user’s weight following the capture of said user’s weight, are being managed, such as by providing the non-numerical outputs and/or providing supportive feedback such as to promote a positive mindset for the user. See further, Applicant’s Spec [0006] which further substantiates the conclusion of the steps being directed towards the behavior of a user regarding measuring, reporting, and tracking body weight over a period of time by outputting various non-numerical inputs/outputs to the user. As such, the steps heavily relate to managing a user’s personal behavior, such as regarding measuring, reporting, and tracking body weight over a period of time and creating a positive mindset, i.e. behavior, for said user, and therefore the independent claims are determined to recite methods of organizing human activity, i.e. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-8 & 10-16, reciting particular aspects of how analyzing a user’s weight providing one or more non-numerical inputs to a user, providing outputs to a user may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components) (SME Test Step 2A, Prong 1 for claims 1-16: Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a platform, a weight sensor, an input mechanism, a controller, a display, amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s specification [0051] for a platform; [0051] for a weight sensor; [0052] for an input mechanism; [0065] for a controller; [0008] & [0052] for a display, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user, measuring a weight of a user, receiving one or more inputs from the user, providing one or more of the at least one non-numerical input, providing the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from the controller as an output to the user amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of providing supportive feedback that is unrelated to the measured weight amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g); providing the non-numerical output to the user, such as when the user is positioned on the platform, amounts to mere data gathering, analyzing information using conventional techniques and/or displaying the result, TLI Communications);
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of the method or system relating to weight management, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-8 & 10-16, limitations which recite a controller, a platform, an input mechanism, an app, a display, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see Applicant’s specification [0065] for a controller; [0051] for a platform; [0052] for an input mechanism; [0061] for an app/application; [0008] & [0052] for a display, see MPEP 2106.05(f); claims 2, 4, & 13, which recite limitations relating to receiving inputs, receiving feedback, etc., additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering; claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, & 15-16, which recite limitations relating to specifying the type of inputs/outputs received/provided, including one or more zones, photo, words, sounds, images, a progressive visual narrative, etc., additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; recitation of providing supportive feedback that is unrelated to the measured weight, additional limitations amounting to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; claim 5 which recite limitations relating to adapting the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input provided to the display based on the received feedback, additional limitations which amount to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g); claims 3, 5, 7, 12-13, & 15-16 which recite limitations relating to receiving, analyzing, and/or outputting one or more non-numerical inputs/outputs, limitations which amount to mere data gathering, analyzing information using conventional techniques and/or displaying the result, TLI Communications; claims 2-8 & 10-15, which recite limitations generally relating to weight management of the user, additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (SME Test Step 2A, Prong 2 for claims 1-16: No).
The independent 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 obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user, measuring a weight of a user, receiving one or more inputs from the user, providing one or more of the at least one non-numerical input, providing the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from the controller as an output to the user, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); measuring and maintaining record of a user’s weight, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); storing varying received input data, weight data, progression data, etc. storing computerized instructions for performance of the steps recited, storing computerized instructions to provide display/visual elements on the display, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user, which could include obtaining/extraction from one or more physical or electronic documents, e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v); obtaining input data and/or receiving one or more inputs from the user at an input mechanism, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
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 2-8 & 10-16, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2, 4, & 13, which recite limitations relating to receiving inputs, receiving feedback, etc., e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 5 which recite limitations relating to adapting the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input provided to the display based on the received feedback, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, & 15, which recite limitations relating to specifying the type of inputs/outputs received/provided, and thereby maintaining one or more data input/output parameters, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 2-8 & 10-16, which recite limitations relating to storing received data, a progressive visual narrative, and/or previous engagements of the user with the platform, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); claims 2, 4, & 13, which recite limitations relating to receiving inputs, receiving feedback, etc., which could include receiving inputs/outputs via scanning and/or extraction via a physical/electronic document under BRI, e.g., electronic scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(v); claims 2, 4, 13, & 15-16, which recite limitations relating to receiving inputs, receiving feedback, and/or user engagement with the platform, etc., which could include receiving said inputs/outputs, from a user input mechanism, such as a screen or user interface, e.g., a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). 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 (SME Test Step 2B for claims 1-16: No).
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.
(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, 3-4 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daniels et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090178858), hereinafter “Daniels”.
Claim 1 –
Regarding Claim 1, Daniels discloses a device for weight management comprising:
a platform (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user upon the user standing on the platform or scale);
a weight sensor configured to measure a weight of a user when the user is positioned on the platform (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user upon the user standing on the platform or scale);
an input mechanism configured to receive one or more inputs from the user, the one or more inputs comprising at least one non-numerical input to be provided by the weight management system (See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018], [0023], & [0034]-[0035] which describe a user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss and the weight scale with a differential display calculating the difference between the user’s current weight and a stored weight value and then utilizing a converter to convert a number/weight to an output which is displayed to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0048] which specifically discloses that the output may be a progress bar as a goal progress indicator or simply an indicator that a goal has been attained or not yet been attained rather than a numeric/weight output; See Daniels Par [0031] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may be prompted to enter an input into the input device, including a goal weight, and could merely be a “gain or loss or positive or negative” and therefore does not necessarily include a numerical input; See Daniels Par [0033] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may select a user profile with the input device, i.e. non-numerical input);
a controller configured to provide one or more of the at least one non-numerical input when the user is positioned on the platform (See Daniels Par [0032]; See Daniels Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the use of a controller coupled to the scale or one or more weight sensor; See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user upon the user standing on the platform or scale); and
a display configured to provide the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input from the controller as an output to the user (See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018], [0023], & [0034]-[0035] which describe an output which is displayed to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018] which specifically mentions the user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss and the weight scale with a differential display that has the capability of comparing the current differential weight with a goal value predetermined by the user and reporting progress towards said goal; See further, Daniels Par [0034]-[0037] which describes the weight scale with a differential display calculating the difference between the user’s current weight and a stored weight value and then converted to a number by which is display to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0048] which specifically discloses that the output may be a progress bar as a goal progress indicator or simply an indicator that a goal has been attained or not yet been attained rather than a numeric/weight output).
Claim 3 –
Regarding Claim 3, Daniels discloses the device of claim 1 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a device, wherein:
the controller is configured to provide one or more of the at least one non-numerical input when the user is positioned on the platform and without a weight measurement being taken (See Daniels Par [0031] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may be prompted to enter an input into the input device, including a goal weight, and could merely be a “gain or loss or positive or negative” and therefore does not necessarily include a numerical input; See Daniels Par [0033] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may select a user profile with the input device, i.e. non-numerical input).
Claim 4 –
Regarding Claim 4, Daniels discloses the device of claim 1 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a device, wherein:
the input mechanism is part of an app (See Daniels Par [0028]-[0030] which discloses that the input device may be configured to associate a user with a user profile, such that the user profile is included in the scale application executed on the controller), and the input mechanism is further configured to receive feedback from the user based on the output provided by the display (See Daniels Par [0028]-[0030] which discloses that the input device may be configured to associate a user with a user profile, such that the user profile is included in the scale application executed on the controller; See Daniels Par [0043] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses the application/input mechanism, allowing the user to input a goal weight and/or perform additional configurations, such as the format and/or specifics, e.g. units, of the output being received).
Claim 7 –
Regarding Claim 7, Daniels discloses the device of claim 1 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a device, wherein:
the output provided by the display is provided fewer times than the weight measurement is taken (the Claim specifically reciting that system is configured to provide the output fewer times than the weight measurement being taken is considered routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 which discloses optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation i.e., the general conditions of this claim are disclosed in Daniels Par [0039] which sets forth that the output device can possibly be configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, upon the user being weighed such as what is described in Daniels Par [0016]-[0031], by using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Daniels Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., which is understood to read on providing a non-numerical output after the weight measurement is taken. However, the non-numerical output specifically only being provided to a limited number of times, i.e. less than the weight measurement being taken, demonstrates an optimization or routine experimentation within the prior art conditions because it is not apparent why this specific is essential or critical to the operation of the device or the entirety of the computerized method, which could occur each time the weight measurement is taken, as disclosed in Daniels).
Claim 8 –
Regarding Claim 8, Daniels discloses the device of claim 1 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a device, wherein:
the output provided by the display comprises an progressive visual narrative (Without further specifying the meaning or definition of “narrative”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “narrative” in view of Applicant’s Specification Par [0049] are indicators, outputs, etc., for tracking and motivating users progress over time, similar to a % of a goal, progress over time, etc.; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; See Daniels Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5-6, & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels, in view of Gage et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0049471), hereinafter “Gage”.
Claim 2 –
Regarding Claim 2, Daniels discloses the device of claim 1 in its entirety. Daniels does not disclose, but Gage further discloses a device, wherein:
the one or more inputs from the user includes first, second, and third zones (See Gage Fig. 3 & Par [0058]-[0059] which describes easy visualization of the patient’s data using non-numerical outputs, and instead some type of percentage and/or graphs versus typical numerical outputs), wherein
the first zone corresponds to a measured weight within a target weight range ((See Gage Fig. 3, El. 38A which discloses a zone or range of the bar graph that is considered the “sweet spot” or within target weight range for the user),
the second zone corresponds to a measured weight that is outside of the target weight range by a first percentage (See Gage Fig. 3, El. 38B which discloses a zone or range of the bar graph that is considered the “caution” zone or outside of the target weight range by a first percentage), and
the third zone corresponds to a measured weight that is outside of the target weight range by a second percentage that is greater than the first percentage (See Gage Fig. 3, El. 38B which discloses a zone or range of the bar graph that is considered the “red alert” zone or vastly outside of the target weight range by a second percentage greater than the first percentage within the second zone).
The disclosure of Gage is directly applicable to the disclosure of Daniels because both disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as both being directed towards the capturing, managing, and maintain of a client’s weight/health over time using a weight capturing platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the disclosure of Daniels regarding the display or presenting of received weight measurements, findings, non-numerical outputs, etc. and inclusion of a first, second, and third zone, to further include the characteristics of each of the zones as set forth in the above Claim, as disclosed by Gage, because this can allow for depictions of good, bad, or severely bad zones, such as what is shown in Gage Fig. 3 or described in Par [0058]-[0059] for easy visualization of the patient’s data, trends, etc. (See Gage Par [0058]-[0059] & Fig. 3)
Claim 5 –
Regarding Claim 5, Daniels discloses the device of claim 4 in its entirety. Daniels and Gage further disclose a device, wherein:
the controller is configured to adapt the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input provided to the display based on the received feedback (See Daniels Par [0028]-[0030] which discloses that the input device may be configured to associate a user with a user profile, such that the user profile is included in the scale application executed on the controller; See Daniels Par [0043] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses the application/input mechanism, allowing the user to input a goal weight and/or perform additional configurations, such as the format and/or specifics, e.g. units, of the output being received, however “units” seem to be directed towards a numerical input/output instead of a non-numerical input; therefore, see Gage Par [0034] which discloses utilizing personal preference data, i.e. received feedback data, which includes the choice of style, method, and timing of data being presented to the client, e.g. choosing choose icons indicating the general state of their weight conditions on an "every-other-day" report or choosing both graphical and text reporting in a flowery and positive style, such that the non-numerical input is therefore adapted based on received client preference/feedback and/or be adjusted to suit the circumstances and level of success).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined disclosure of Daniels, which discloses the use of non-numerical inputs and receiving user feedback to further include adapt the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input provided to the display based on the received feedback, as disclosed by Gage, because each client may have a unique or different personality and/or preferred form of data being presented to them that reflects said personality/preferences (See Gage Par [0034]).
Claim 6 –
Regarding Claim 6, Daniels and Gage disclose the device of claim 5 in its entirety. Daniels further disclose a device, wherein:
the one or more inputs from the user comprises photos, words, sounds, or images (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user each time the user stands on the platform or scale; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., constituting both visual and textual element; See Daniels Par [0026] which specifically discloses the input device, and thereby inputs being received by said input device, including a keyboard and/or voice-operated/voice-command recognition system, i.e. word and/or sound inputs; While not being relied upon, for the sake of advancing prosecution, see Gage Par [0075] which describes a style of report and/or additional non-numeric readouts being generated for a client, such as color indicators, auditory/audible indications, icons, and graphs, but is not necessarily relied upon since the limitation only requires one of (i.e. audio or visual feedback) the non-numerical output options to read on the limitation above, which Daniels effectively discloses).
Claim 9 –
Regarding Claim 9, Daniels discloses a method of weight management comprising:
obtaining input data related to a target weight of a user (See Daniels Fig. 1 & Par [0020]-[0031] which describe an input device connected to the scale application, such as for receiving input from one or more weight sensors, temperature sensor, and/or load data from the user profile data which may include one or more previous weights, dates, timestamps associated with user weighing, a goal weight and/or goal differential weight, etc.; Further, see Daniels Par [0017] which discloses the user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss);
measuring a weight of the user (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user upon or after the user standing/stands on the platform or scale; See Daniels Par [0022] which specifically describes weight sensors for capturing the weight of the user);
converting the measured weight to a non-numerical output based upon the input data (See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018], [0023], & [0034]-[0035] which describe a user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss and the weight scale with a differential display calculating the difference between the user’s current weight and a stored weight value and then utilizing a converter to convert a number/weight to an output which is displayed to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0048] which specifically discloses that the output may be a progress bar as a goal progress indicator or simply an indicator that a goal has been attained or not yet been attained rather than a numeric/weight output);
providing the non-numerical output to the user without providing the measured weight to the user (See Daniels Par [0017]-[0018] which specifically mentions the user possibly having a predetermined goal for weight loss and the weight scale with a differential display that has the capability of comparing the current differential weight with a goal value predetermined by the user and reporting progress towards said goal; See further, Daniels Par [0034]-[0037] which describes the weight scale with a differential display calculating the difference between the user’s current weight and a stored weight value and then converted to a number by which is display to the user via LED screen or LED display; See Daniels Par [0048] which specifically discloses that the output may be a progress bar as a goal progress indicator or simply an indicator that a goal has been attained or not yet been attained rather than a numeric/weight output); and
providing supportive feedback to the user that is unrelated to the measured weight so as to promote a positive mindset for the user (See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; See Daniels Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc. which meets the limitation of supportive feedback for the user and could potentially create a positive mindset for the user depending on the feedback provided being desired or not desired; further, it should be noted that “to promote a positive mindset for the user” is simply an intended use of the recited feature, and is not determined to further limit the claim).
While Daniels is understood to read on a scale comprising a converter configured to be customized by a user to include at least one non-numerical output, Daniels does not explicitly mention that the supportive feedback is unrelated to the measured weight. That is, the feedback, i.e. output, of Daniels, i.e. progress bar, etc., seems to be based specifically on the weight measurement of the user. Therefore, an additional reference or piece of art is needed to teach an output, indication, etc., that is not specifically based on the weight measurement of the user.
As such, Gage discloses a non-numerical output that is unrelated to the user’s weight measurement (See Gage Par [0007]-[0010] which discloses some users specifically desiring “softer” information and/or complete ignorance from numerical readouts regarding weight; See Gage Par [0066] which discloses feedback indications related to when a device is ready for weight measurement, when a successful measurement has occurred, and finally an indication that data has successfully been transmitted to a target computer or personal digital assistant, constituting non-numeric output and complete ignorance to a numeric output related to the weight measurement; Gage Par [0075] describes a style of a report and/or additional non-numeric readouts being generated for a client, such as color indicators, auditory indications such as music or sounds, icons, and graphs, etc., for communicating, however these are not explicitly described as related/unrelated to the weight measurement versus Gage Par [0066] described above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Daniels regarding the use of non-numerical outputs, to specifically include non-numerical outputs that are unrelated to the user’s weight measurement, as disclosed by Gage, because some users desire “softer” information and/or complete ignorance from numerical readouts regarding weight, since numerical readouts may have an undesirable psychological effect on them (See Gage Par [0007]-[0010]).
Claim 10 –
Regarding Claim 10, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, wherein:
the non-numerical output comprises audio or visual feedback (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user each time the user stands on the platform or scale; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., constituting both visual and textual element; See Gage Par [0075] which describes a style of report and/or additional non-numeric readouts being generated for a client, such as color indicators, auditory/audible indications, icons, and graphs, but is not necessarily relied upon since the limitation only requires one of (i.e. audio or visual feedback) the non-numerical output options to read on the limitation above, which Daniels effectively discloses).
Claim 11 –
Regarding Claim 11, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, further comprising:
obtaining customized input from the user, comprising photos, words, sounds, or images (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user each time the user stands on the platform or scale; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., constituting both visual and textual element; See Daniels Par [0026] which specifically discloses the input device, and thereby inputs being received by said input device, including a keyboard and/or voice-operated/voice-command recognition system, i.e. word and/or sound inputs; See Gage Par [0075] which describes a style of report and/or additional non-numeric readouts being generated for a client, such as color indicators, auditory/audible indications, icons, and graphs, but is not necessarily relied upon since the limitation only requires one of (i.e. audio or visual feedback) the non-numerical output options to read on the limitation above, which Daniels effectively discloses).
Claim 12 –
Regarding Claim 12, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, wherein:
providing the non-numerical output to the user comprises providing the non-numerical output at least one minute after measuring the weight (the Claim specifically reciting that system is configured to delay providing the non-numerical output until at least one minute after the weight measurement is taken is considered routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 which discloses optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation i.e., the general conditions of this claim are disclosed in Daniels Par [0039] which sets forth that the output device can possibly be configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, upon the user being weighed such as what is described in Daniels Par [0016]-[0031], by using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., which is understood to read on providing a non-numerical output after the weight measurement is taken. However, the non-numerical output specifically having to be provided one minute after the weight measurement, demonstrates an optimization or routine experimentation within the prior art conditions because it is not apparent why this specific timing of the providing of the output is essential to the operation of the device or the entirety of the computerized method, which could occur at any time after the weight measurement is taken, as disclosed in Daniels. Therefore, this optimization or routine experimentation within the prior art does not confer patentable weight on the limitation, and should not have to be met by a reference other than the disclosing of the general providing of the non-numerical output to the user following the weight measurement being taken, however, it is further understood that Gage et al. describes delaying output to the scale and instead sending the output to a personal phone or computer, that which is delayed from an instantaneous readout provided on a scale, if it this optimization/routine experimentation is considered essential or critical to the performance of the steps recited).
Claim 13 –
Regarding Claim 13, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, further comprising:
limiting a number of times that the non-numerical output is provided to the user (the Claim specifically reciting that the system is configured to limit a number of times that the output is provided to the user is considered routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 which discloses optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation i.e., the general conditions of this claim are disclosed in Daniels Par [0039] which sets forth that the output device can possibly be configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, upon the user being weighed such as what is described in Daniels Par [0016]-[0031], by using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc., which is understood to read on providing a non-numerical output after the weight measurement is taken. However, the non-numerical output specifically only being provided a limited number of times demonstrates an optimization or routine experimentation within the prior art conditions because it is not apparent why this specific is essential or critical to the operation of the device or the entirety of the computerized method, which could occur any number of times after the weight measurement is taken, as disclosed in Daniels).
Claim 14 –
Regarding Claim 14, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, further comprising:
receiving feedback from the user after providing the non-numerical output (See Daniels Par [0031] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may be prompted to enter an input into the input device, including a goal weight, and could merely be a “gain or loss or positive or negative” and therefore does not necessarily include a numerical input; See Daniels Par [0033] which discloses before, during, or after the weighing, the user may select a user profile, i.e. non-numerical input, with the input device; See Daniels Par [0028]-[0030] which discloses that the input device may be configured to associate a user with a user profile, such that the user profile is included in the scale application executed on the controller; See Daniels Par [0043] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses the application/input mechanism, allowing the user to input a goal weight and/or perform additional configurations, such as the format and/or specifics, e.g. units, of the output being received), wherein
the feedback is based on the non-numerical output provided to the user (See Daniels Par [0028]-[0030] which discloses that the input device may be configured to associate a user with a user profile, such that the user profile is included in the scale application executed on the controller; See Daniels Par [0043] & [0045]-[0046] which discloses the application/input mechanism, allowing the user to input a goal weight and/or perform additional configurations, such as the format and/or specifics, e.g. units, of the output being received, however “units” seem to be directed towards a numerical input/output instead of a non-numerical input; therefore, see Gage Par [0034] which discloses utilizing personal preference data, i.e. received feedback data, which includes the choice of style, method, and timing of data being presented to the client, e.g. choosing choose icons indicating the general state of their weight conditions on an "every-other-day" report or choosing both graphical and text reporting in a flowery and positive style, such that the non-numerical input is therefore adapted based on received client preference/feedback and/or be adjusted to suit the circumstances and level of success).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined disclosure of Daniels and Gage, which discloses the use of non-numerical inputs and receiving user feedback to further include adapt the one or more of the at least one non-numerical input provided to the display based on the received feedback, as disclosed by Gage, because each client may have a unique or different personality and/or preferred form of data being presented to them that reflects said personality/preferences (See Gage Par [0034]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels, in view of Gage, in view of Walthouwer et al. (“Systematic development of a text-driven and a video-driven web-based computer-tailored obesity prevention intervention”– BMC Public Health – 2013 – NPL Reference U of PTO-892 form), hereinafter “Walthouwer”.
Claim 15 –
Regarding Claim 15, Daniels and Gage disclose the method of claim 9 in its entirety. Daniels further discloses a method, wherein:
the non-numerical output is a visual narrative that progresses through a story each time the user is positioned on a platform independent from measuring the weight (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user each time the user stands on the platform or scale; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; See Daniels Par [0048]-[0051] which describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc. each time the user steps on the scale).
While Daniels and Gage generally disclose providing a non-numeric output that progresses each time the user is positioned on the platform and the user having complete ignorance to a numeric output related to the weight measurement, Daniels and Gage do not seem to explicitly mention “a visual narrative that progresses through a story, independent from measuring the weight” per se.
However, Walthouwer discloses a visual narrative that progresses through a story, independent from measuring the weight (See Walthouwer Box 1, which discloses narratives being created for target individuals/users of the system, that follow a chronological storyline in which a role model tells how his/her behavior change is going and how he/she deals with encountered difficulties, and participants can choose if they want to view these stories, and all narratives show people who are struggling with their behavior change but eventually succeed in achieving their goal, and are therefore understood to be independent from a user’s measured weight and/or obesity management efforts, such that in text-text interventions, the narratives merely consist of text, while the narratives in the video-text intervention are displayed by means of videos; See Walthouwer Box 2, which discloses the narratives can help the user in generating ideas for coping plans for changing a certain behavior or finding motivation for change). The disclosure of Walthouwer is directly applicable to the disclosure of Daniels and Gage because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards methods and systems for monitoring and/or managing a user’s weight, outputting varying information (numeric and/or non-numeric) relating to said weight management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Daniels and Gage regarding a non-numeric output that progresses each time the user is positioned on the platform and the user having complete ignorance to a numeric output related to the weight measurement, to further specify the non-numeric output to be a visual narrative that progresses through a story, independent from measuring the weight, as disclosed by Walthouwer, because this allows for participants to identify themselves with the persons in the narratives and can include tips for viewers of the video to further implement behavioral changes/motivations (See Walthouwer Boxes 1 and 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels, in view of Gage, in view of Walthouwer, further in view of Kaleal, III et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0086500), hereinafter “Kaleal”.
Claim 16 –
Regarding Claim 16, Daniels, Gage, and Walthouwer disclose the method of claim 15 in its entirety. Daniels and Walthouwer further disclose a method, wherein:
the progression of the visual narrative is based on previous engagement with the platform (See Daniels Abstract, Fig. 2, Par [0004]-[0007] & [0016]-[0031], which generally describe a weight scale or platform for capturing weight of a user each time the user stands on the platform or scale; Without further specifying the meaning or definition of “narrative”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “narrative” in view of Applicant’s Specification Par [0049] are indicators, outputs, etc., for tracking and motivating users progress over time, similar to a % of a goal, progress over time, etc.; See Daniels Par [0039] which discloses the output device possibly configured to communicate the progress of the user with respect to a goal value rather than a current weight, using a difference value, percentage of the goal, graphical status indicator, etc.; See Daniels Par [0048]-[0051] describes a number of possible combinations of elements to be displayed on the LED screen or LED display of the scale in Daniels, such as a goal progress indicator which displays a certain % of a goal, or a simple “gain” or “loss” or some other appropriate indication rather than the actual measured weight amount, number, units, etc. each time the user steps on the scale, i.e. based on previous engagement with the platform albeit not explicitly recited for progression of a visual narrative; See Walthouwer Box 1, which discloses narratives being created for target individuals/users of the system, that follow a chronological storyline in which a role model tells how his/her behavior change is going and how he/she deals with encountered difficulties, and participants can choose if they want to view these stories, and all narratives show people who are struggling with their behavior change but eventually succeed in achieving their goal, and are therefore understood to be independent from a user’s measured weight and/or obesity management efforts, such that in text-text interventions, the narratives merely consist of text, while the narratives in the video-text intervention are displayed by means of videos; See Walthouwer Box 2, which discloses the narratives can help the user in generating ideas for coping plans for changing a certain behavior or finding motivation for change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Daniels and Gage regarding a non-numeric output that progresses each time the user is positioned on the platform and the user having complete ignorance to a numeric output related to the weight measurement, to further specify the non-numeric output to be a visual narrative that progresses through a story, independent from measuring the weight, as disclosed by Walthouwer, because this allows for participants to identify themselves with the persons in the narratives and can include tips for viewers of the video to further implement behavioral changes/motivations (See Walthouwer Boxes 1 and 2).
While Daniels, Gage, and Walthouwer generally disclose a visual narrative that progresses through a story each time the user is positioned on the platform, independent from measuring the weight, these references are generally silent on the progression of the non-numeric output, i.e. visual narrative, being based on previous engagement with the platform. However, because Daniels, Gage, and Walthouwer already disclose a visual narrative that progresses through a story each time the user is positioned on the platform, it is understood that the elected non-numeric output of a visual narrative has already been taught, and an additional reference merely needs to teach the progression of the non-numeric output being based on previous engagement with the platform.
Therefore, Kaleal discloses the progression of the non-numeric output being based on previous engagement with the platform (See Kaleal Par [0149] which discloses an avatar control component and avatar generation component and interface component configures a graphical user interfaces that facilitates user interaction with system, such that interface component is configured to generate a graphical user interface that includes an avatar that performs the various reactions, based on said user interactions; See Kaleal Par [0217] which discloses the avatar interaction component being configured to facilitate generating and presenting an avatar to a user that is responsive to the user's physical state; See Kaleal Par [0041] which discloses responses determined for manifestation by an avatar being based on learned user behavior, including historical data regarding past reactions/responses performed by the user to avatar responses in association with same or similar routines, tasks or actions can be collected and analyzed using various machine learning techniques to determine what types of avatar responses work and don't work for the user, and therefore, traits, habits and abilities of the user can be learned over time and employed to tailor avatar responses; See Kaleal Par [0226] which discloses the reaction of the avatar being provided to the user with guidance and/or motivation with adhering to the program and can include visual and audible reactions in the avatar (e.g., speaking, moving, facial expression, tone of voice, etc.), and the reaction can include initiation of electronic communication (e.g., sending a notification, initiating an emergency call), and provision of external media (e.g., images, articles, a map, videos, songs, etc.) to the user to facilitate guiding the user with adherence to the program and could possibly include a “narrative” under BRI). The disclosure of Kaleal is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Daniels, Gage, and Walthouwer, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards monitoring a user well-being over time and outputting varying information regarding said well-being monitoring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Daniels, Gage, and Walthouwer which discloses a visual narrative that progresses through a story each time the user is positioned on the platform, independent from measuring the weight, to further include the progression of the non-numeric output, being based on previous engagement with the platform, as disclosed by Kaleal, because this allows for the system to determine what types of non-numeric output responses work and don't work for the user, and therefore, traits, habits and abilities of the user can be learned over time and employed to tailor avatar responses (See Kaleal Par [0041], [0149], & [0226]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nusbaum et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,690,578) discloses a system for executing weight, nutrition, health, behavior and exercise application software serves as a simulated combination personal trainer and dietician/nutritionist for the user using comprehensive databases storing personalized health, nutrition and exercise information;
Heyer et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0155356) discloses a system for an interactive nutrition game and associated methods of use are disclosed for encouraging an at least one user/entity to eat healthy foods;
Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0000347) discloses a system for effectively integrate appetite management data with conventional weight management information, such as caloric expenditure and consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684