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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/18/24 with revised claims submitted on 01/27/25.
Claims 1, 38-75 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/626,465, filed 1/29/24 is acknowledged. However, the provisional application does not appear to provide support for at least the following limitations of the instant independent claim 1: identifying, by one or more processors, for a user with a substance use disorder, a profile including a plurality of substance use words; presenting, by the one or more processors, a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use, and an instruction to memorize the plurality of memory words; providing, by the one or more processors, an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words. Independent claims 38 and 75 recite substantially similar limitations and similarly, do not appear to have support in the provisional application.
Specifically, provisional application does not appear to disclose any instances of “substance use words”, “memory use words”, instructions to memorize words, or provide an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of a plurality of substance use words and/or memory words. Para. [0015] broadly teaches on presenting a stimuli to the user; “The stimuli 175 can be or include a stimulus or action to be presented textually, as
an image, as a video, or other visual presentation to the user and can include instructions for the user to perform the action to address symptoms associated with the condition. The stimuli 175 can be or include a stimulus or action to be presented auditorily via a loudspeaker of the user device 110”; Stimuli are further described in paras. [0020]-[0022] with para. [0022] disclosing “Each of the stimuli 175 may prompt the user via the application 125 to perform an action via the application 125. For example, the application 125 may receive instructions to present an activity to be performed as a part of the stimuli 175. The stimuli 175 may be used to provide therapies to reduce the bias towards a negative stimulus associated with the condition, symptoms of the condition, or other cognitive or behavioral effects of the condition. The stimuli 175 may be presented as games, activities, or actions to be performed by the user via the user interface 130”. This is not sufficient to provide support for all of the limitations of instant Claims 1, 38 and 75 as currently claimed.
Accordingly, a priority date of 01/18/2024 has been given to this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 39, 42, 44, 47, 49, 53, 55-60, 62-65, 70, 71 are objected for minor informalities: These claims appear to be missing a verb (is/are) in the preambles, which recite “…wherein the one or more processors further configured to:”. Examiner is interpreting these as “…wherein the one or more processors is further configured to” as recited by Claim 41. 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.
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.
Claims 51, 65, 74 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.
Claim 51, which depends from Claim 49, recites the limitation "the timeline" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to read “a timeline” or if the claim was intended to depend from Claim 50, which does recite “a timeline”. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “a timeline”.
Claim 65, which depends from Claim 38, recites the limitation "the prompt" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “a prompt”.
Claim 74, which depends from Claim 38, recites the limitation "the prompt" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as “a timeline”.
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, 38-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 75 are drawn to a method, and Claims 38-74 are drawn to a system, both of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 38-75 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
Identifying, for a user with a substance use disorder, a profile including a plurality of substance use words;
presenting a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use and an instruction to memorize the plurality of memory words;
providing an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words; and
updating the profile of the user using the performance of the user in the activity.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Creating a profile for a user with a substance use disorder including substance use words, providing the user with a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use and instructing the user to memorize them, instructing the user to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words and memory words and updating the user’s profile based on their performance are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider such as a substance addiction counselor.
Independent claim 38 recites similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 75 recites implementing the steps of:
administering to a user a therapeutic treatment comprising:
identifying for a user with a substance use disorder, a profile including a plurality of substance use words;
presenting a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use, and an instruction to memorize the plurality of memory words; and
providing an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Providing a therapeutic treatment to a user by creating a profile for a user with a substance use disorder including substance use words, providing the user with a plurality of “memory words” not related to the substance use and instructing the user to memorize the words, instructing the user to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words and memory words are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider such as a substance addiction counselor.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
one or more processors as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 1, 38)
“digital” therapeutic as the type of treatment administered to the user (Claim 75)
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements (one or more processors, digital therapeutic) at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. Regarding the one or more processors, per paras. [0269]-[0270], this is understood to be any of a variety of general purpose processors functioning in its ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea. Regarding “digital” therapeutic, this only amounts to instructions to apply a therapeutic treatment using a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity; per [0067] the digital therapeutics application is understood to be software which may be accessed via a user device (e.g., a smartphone, mobile phone, tablet, wearable device, or laptop computer per [0067]) by downloading the application to the user device or accessing it via web application through a network.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 38, 75 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claims 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 60, 52-54, 61, 67, 78, 72-74 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims. The remaining dependent claims all recite further limitations which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as detailed below:
Claims 39, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 55-58, 66, 69 recite limitations pertaining presenting various types of instructions and/or prompts to the user, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a healthcare provider providing a therapeutic session to a user may provide instructions to the user to follow or may provide a prompt to the user to take a certain action. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claims 1 and 38, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to amount to significantly more.
Claims 59-63 recite limitations pertaining to making various determinations (e.g., determining a score) and making selections (e.g., selecting words based on the score), which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a healthcare provider providing a therapeutic session to a user could make determinations related to user’s performance and subsequently make selections pertaining to the user’s therapy. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to amount to significantly more.
Claim 64 recites limitations pertaining to displaying the score indicating at least one of a percentage of correct interactions, speed of selections, or both during one or more activities, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a healthcare provider providing a therapeutic session to a user could visually provide (“display”) a score of indicative of the user’s performance metrics. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 65 recites limitations pertaining to generating one or more cue words or images based on the information on the future event provided by the user; and wherein the prompt related to the information on the future event comprises the one or more cue words or images, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a healthcare provider providing a therapeutic session to a user could generate cue words regarding a future event to provide to the user. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and 35, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to amount to significantly more.
Claim 70 recites limitations pertaining to receiving a request from the user indicating an onset of the behavior associated with the substance use; and initiating responsive to receiving the request, the instructions for activities to address maladaptive behaviors associated with substance use in the user, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a user having onset of behaviors associated with substance use could request assistance from a healthcare provider, who could begin to provide therapeutic services to the user in response to the suer’s request. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and 35, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to amount to significantly more.
Claim 71 recites limitations pertaining to determining a time at which to provide the instruction to perform the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or the plurality of substance use words, and wherein providing the instruction to perform the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words and/or the plurality of memory words further comprises providing the instruction at the determined time, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as a healthcare provider could determine a time at which to provide an instruction to a user to perform an action and subsequently provide the instruction to the user at that time. The claims also recite “the one or more processors” as implementing the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and 35, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using general purpose computing components functioning in their ordinary capacities. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1 or claim 38 respectively. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 39-74 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and 35 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements (e.g., one or more processors) only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. 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.
Dependent claims 39-74, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1, 38-75 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 38, 54, 55, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73, 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et. al. (US Publication 20160155353A1) in view of Vaughan et. al. (US Publication 20190019581A1) and further in view of Berka et. al. (US Publication 20100292545 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Merzenich discloses:
identifying, by one or more processors, for a user with a substance use disorder, a plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on trigger words (synonymous with “substance use words”) related to alcoholism (interpreted as reading on a “substance use disorder”) including “beer”, “bar” and “happy hour”; these trigger words are interpreted as being identified for a user with alcoholism as they are presented to a game participant for whom trigger words lead to unhealthy psychological responses per [0304]; the trigger words are related to the substance use disorder alcoholism; [0159] teaches on using a computer system with the present invention having a “CPU”);
presenting, by the one or more processors, a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use ([0304]-[0306] teach on a game to identify font color of words that include words that trigger unhealthy psychological responses; the game presents “challenge words” which may either be “neutral words” or “trigger words related to an addiction” (substance use words as discussed in preceding limitation); Examiner interprets “neutral word” to read on “memory word” per Applicant’s specification [0012], and accordingly read on the claim language of presenting “memory words not related to the substance use”; see Fig. 54 in which neutral word “rails” is presented, interpreted as presenting a memory word as it is not related to alcoholism), and
providing, by the one or more processors, an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging (“providing an instruction”) to the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or substance use words”, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word), e.g., the activity refrains from selecting a memory word or substance use word; see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and/or substance use words; [0159] teaches on using a computer system with the present invention having a “CPU”); and
updating, by the one or more processors, ([0307]-[0308] teach on the Name the Color game measuring and tracking the game participant’s (“user’s”) response time to each challenge word (“performance of the user in the activity”) and ranking the game participant’s performance against those of other participants).
Merzenich does not disclose, but Vaughan, which is directed to a platform and system for providing personalized digital therapeutics to patients, teaches:
a profile of a user ([0035] teaches on generating a user profile in response to user interactions with a device; [0285] teaches on a “response profile” of a patient in response to a therapy)
updating, by the one or more processors, the profile of the user using the performance of the user in the activity ([0035] teaches a mobile device which displays therapeutic instructions (“activity”) to the user in response to the user’s profile; the user profile is updated in response to treatment; [0010] teaches on digital devices including processors; [0012] teaches on mobile device being a type of digital device; [0285] further teaches on patients having “response profiles” in response to a therapy; the response profile can be categorized (“updated”) based on an initial response of the subject).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich with these teachings of Vaughan, to maintain a user profile and update the user profile based on their performance of a therapeutic activity, with the motivation of using a user profile to personalize therapeutic interventions (Vaughan [0022] and using treatment data to provide an updated personal treatment plan for the subject [0039] and to indicate in the profile whether a treatment is working or not working ([0285]).
Merzenich/Vaughan do not disclose, but Berka, which is directed to an interactive psychophysiological profiler method and system, teaches:
presenting instruction to memorize a plurality of words ([0040] teaches on presenting the subject with a number of words to memorize, e.g., 3, 5, or 7 words to memorize)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan with these teachings of Berka, so that the user of Merzenich’s system is presented with instructions to memorize a plurality of Merzenich’s memory words, with the motivation of assessing the user’s learning ability by increasing the number of words to memorize gradually to increase difficulty (Berka [0040]).
Regarding Claim 38, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 38 recites the same or substantially similar limitations as Claim 1, and the discussion above with respect to Claim 1 is equally applicable to Claim 38. Claim 38 is directed to a system which is also disclosed by Merzenich at [0014], [0158]. Claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 54, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words is performed concurrently with the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of concurrently refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and substance use words, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word); see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and substance use words concurrently).
Regarding Claim 55, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide a subsequent instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging (“providing an instruction”) to the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or substance use words”, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word); see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and/or substance use words; [0159] teaches on using a computer system with the present invention having a “CPU”; Examiner submits that this limitation mirrors the next to last limitation in Claim 38 except that the instant claim recites a “subsequent” instruction. The limitations of instant claim 55 amount to duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Claim 55 is merely repeating the same steps as Claim 38 at a later (“subsequent”) point in time and does not yield a new or unexpected result.)
Regarding Claim 60, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: determine a score indicating correct interactions, speed of selections, or both during performance of one or more activities ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers, which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined).
select a subsequent [difficulty level] based on the score ([0180]-[0181] teach on the games adjusting to an individual’s performance level; the system sustains an individual’s performance at a challenging 80-90% level of performance success; the continuously-adjusted adaptability is adjusted across sessions to ensure games become more challenging at exactly the appropriate rate for a specific individual’s rate).
plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on plurality of trigger words for alcoholism)
Merzenich does not disclose, but Berka further teaches:
select a subsequent plurality of words ([0040] teaches on gradually increasing the number of words in a memory test for a user to memorize, e.g., from 3 to 8 words, across different tests).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Berka, to select a subsequent plurality of words, e.g., substance use words as taught by Merzenich, when the user has achieved a particular performance level, with the motivation of selecting subsequent words to assess the subject’s learning abilities and adaptabilities by providing increasingly difficult versions (Berka [0040]).
Regarding Claim 62, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: determine a score indicating correct interactions, speed of the selections, or both during performance of the activity to refrain from selecting the plurality of memory words and/or the plurality of substance use words ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers for games (activities), which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined; per mapping for Claim 38, it is understood that the activity includes refraining from selecting memory and/or substance use words as discussed with respect to Claim 38); and
determine responsive to the score satisfying a threshold, an increase in [difficulty] for a subsequent activity to refrain from selecting the plurality of memory words and/or the plurality of substance use words ([0173] teaches on games including multiple levels and multiple stages; game participant is required to achieve a certain threshold of performance in order to “unlock” another, more difficult level; Examiner submits that descriptions at [0169]-[0173] are high-level “General Characteristics” of the training program comprising a plurality of games or exercises and therefore includes the recited activity, e.g., paras. [0304]-[0306] as discussed with respect to parent claim 38).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose that the game is made more difficult by increasing a number of words, however, this element is taught by Berka:
increase in a number of words ([0040] teaches on presenting the subject with a number of words to memorize, e.g., 3, 5, or 7 words to memorize; the subject can first be administered an easy version with 3 words and then increasingly difficult versions with words increasing to 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan with these teachings of Berka, so that the user of Merzenich’s system is presented an increased number of words as a means of making the activity more difficult, with the motivation of increasing the number of words the user must memorize to gradually to increase difficulty (Berka [0040]).
Regarding Claim 66, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein providing the instruction to perform the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words and/or the one or more of the plurality of memory words further comprises providing, by the one or more processors, an instruction to perform an activity for the user to select one or more of a plurality of neutral words unrelated to substance use and different than the memory words (see Fig. 54, the words green, red, blue and black are neither challenge word (memory word/substance use word as discussed above with respect to Claim 38; per [0306] the user is instructed to select the button whose label matches the color of a challenge word).
Regarding Claim 67, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein providing the instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of [stimuli] comprises presenting the one or more of the plurality of words for less than 1 second, less than 2 seconds, less than 3 seconds, 5 seconds, or equal to or greater than 10 seconds ([0205] teaches on displaying stimuli intended to be positive or ignored to a user; “all stimuli disappear after a brief interval” before the task continues to the next step; Examiner interprets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “brief interval” to be any of the time frames recited by the instant claim).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose selecting “substance use words and/or memory words” based on the score. However, in a separate embodiment, Merzenich also discloses memory words and substance use words were old and well known in the art of computerized healthcare for therapeutics, before the effective filing date of the instant application (para. [0306]), to arrive at a system would present a memory word or substance use word for a particular amount of time (e.g., less than 1, 2 or 3 seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the embodiments of Merzenich directed to presenting stimuli to be ignored or positive stimuli to a user and with a different embodiment utilizing words related to substance use and words not related (“memory words”), because: both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied; the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving an activity performed by a user interacting with a computerized therapy application; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter regarding a computerized therapy application and being disclosed in the same reference.
Regarding Claim 68, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the instruction to perform an activity is provided to the user at least once a day, at least once every 2 days, at least once every 5 days, or at least once a week ([0174] teaching on the user being challenged (instructed) to perform at least a certain number of games per day (synonymous with “at least once a day).
Regarding Claim 72, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses, wherein the one or more activities is performed over a period of 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 7 minutes, 10 minutes or longer ([0171] teaches on each game being subdivided into progressive 1.5-2 minute challenges; each 1.5-2 minute challenge is interpreted as the activity being performed over a period of 2 minutes).
Regarding Claim 73, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses, wherein the substance use comprises at least one of alcohol abuse disorder (AUD), opioid abuse disorder (OUD), or drug abuse ([0270] teach on the stimuli provided in the following examples being for alcoholism; [0306] teaches on trigger words specific to alcoholism; Examiner interprets alcoholism reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of alcohol abuse disorder).
Regarding Claim 75, Merzenich discloses: a method of treating or ameliorating substance use disorder (SUD) in a user in need thereof ([0197] teaches on a computer-based cognitive training program that facilitates a rapid, reliable and complete rehabilitation of persons dealing with alcohol, methamphetamine, cocaine, prescription drug or other substance abuse; the program consists of a plurality of games designed to weaken craving, re-establish a more normal balance of the brain’s reward system, bring impulsive actions under control – “ameliorating” a SUD), comprising:
administering to the user a treatment comprising a digital therapeutic ([0197] teaches on a computer-based cognitive training program that facilitates a rapid, reliable and complete rehabilitation of persons dealing with a substance abuse problem; a computer-based program that provides “rehabilitation” is interpreted as reading on “a digital therapeutic”; the program consists of a plurality of games designed to weaken craving, re-establish a more normal balance of the brain’s reward system, bring impulsive actions under control; Paras. [0263] teaches on the participant being “challenged” to take a particular action in different games and [0305] teaches on the user being “instructed” to take a particular action in a game; both of these are interpreted as administering the treatment via the digital therapeutic to the user), the digital therapeutic comprising:
identifying for a user with a substance use disorder, a plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on trigger words (synonymous with “substance use words”) related to alcoholism (interpreted as reading on a “substance use disorder”) including “beer”, “bar” and “happy hour”; these trigger words are interpreted as being identified for a user with alcoholism as they are presented to a game participant for whom trigger words lead to unhealthy psychological responses per [0304]; the trigger words are related to the substance use disorder alcoholism);
presenting a plurality of memory words not related to the substance use ([0304]-[0306] teach on a game to identify font color of words that include words that trigger unhealthy psychological responses; the game presents “challenge words” which may either be “neutral words” or “trigger words related to an addiction” (substance use words as discussed in preceding limitation); Examiner interprets “neutral word” to read on “memory word” per Applicant’s specification [0012], and accordingly read on the claim language of presenting “memory words not related to the substance use”; see Fig. 54 in which neutral word “rails” is presented, interpreted as presenting a memory word), and
; and
providing an instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging (“providing an instruction”) to the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or substance use words”, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word); see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and/or substance use words)
Merzenich does not disclose, but Vaughan, which is directed to a platform and system for providing personalized digital therapeutics to patients, teaches:
a profile of a user ([0035] teaches on generating a user profile in response to user interactions with a device; [0285] teaches on a “response profile” of a patient in response to a therapy)
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich with these teachings of Vaughan, to maintain a user profile and update the user profile based on their performance of a therapeutic activity, with the motivation of using a user profile to personalize therapeutic interventions (Vaughan [0022]) and to indicate in the profile whether a treatment is working or not working ([0285]).
Merzenich/Vaughan do not disclose, but Berka, which is directed to an interactive psychophysiological profiler method and system, teaches:
presenting instruction to memorize a plurality of words ([0040] teaches on presenting the subject with a number of words to memorize, e.g., 3, 5, or 7 words to memorize)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan with these teachings of Berka, so that the user of Merzenich’s system is presented with instructions to memorize a plurality of Merzenich’s memory words, with the motivation of assessing the user’s learning ability by increasing the number of words to memorize gradually to increase difficulty (Berka [0040]).
Claim(s) 39-53, 56, 65, 71, 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et. al. (US Publication 20160155353A1) in view of Vaughan et. al. (US Publication 20190019581A1) and further in view of Berka et. al. (US Publication 20100292545 A1) as applied to Claim 38 above, and further in view of Brust et. al. (US Publication 20140157171A1).
Regarding Claim 39, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Brust, which is directed to goal-based content selection and delivery for helping an individual to achieve a goal or set of goals, teaches: wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide an instruction to perform an activity to provide information on a future event ([0017]/Fig. 7B teach on an example GUI for establishing destinations (“future event”; see question mark icon in Fig. 7B which says “Dream Big. Set up a goal NOW”; [0120] further teaches on Fig. 7B’s “Destination” goal dashboard for selection of particular goals, to receive and display a particular user focus related to a selected goal; the goal dashboard allows display and selection of one or multiple goals; Examiner interprets the display of “Set up a goal NOW” in Fig. 7B along with selections for the goal (e.g., Lose Weight, Get Moving, Eat Better icons) to read on “perform an activity to provide information” on a future event where the activity is inputting a selection of a future event which is the destination/goal).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to instruct the user to provide information regarding a future event, with the motivation of customizing content provided to the user that is specific to their goal (Brust [0076]) and providing appropriate suggestions to the user for them to take small steps toward their goal (Brust [0112]).
Regarding Claim 40, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 39. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches wherein the future event is related to at least one of the user's health, relationships, values, finances, enjoyment, charitable contributions, sobriety, small steps, achievement, future gratitude, challenges, lifestyle, or overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use ([0069] teaches on a user having a goal such as “lose a certain amount of weight” (interpreted as a future event “related to user’s health”); [0069] also teaches on a user goal of “quit smoking” which is interpreted as “overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use”, “lifestyle”, and “user’s health” [0112] teaches on an example of a user having a goal of “run a half marathon” (future event); Examiner interprets running a half marathon to be related to the user’s health, achievement, lifestyle, and challenges).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, for the future event to be related to the user’s health, achievement, challenges, lifestyle and overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use, with the motivation of setting a goal that will help the user to develop healthy habits, positive self-image and confidence (Brust [0070]).
Regarding Claim 41, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 39. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: provide prior to providing the instruction to perform [an action] ([0112] teaches on the goal being to “run a half marathon”; the goal engine suggests to the client begin by walking a mile during some schedule), an instruction for the user to select a type of future event selected from at least one of the user's health, relationships, values, finances, enjoyment, charitable contributions, sobriety, small steps, achievement, future gratitude, challenges, lifestyle, or overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use (see Fig. 7B; the user is prompted to select a type of future event which include “Lose weight” (synonymous with “User’s health”), “Get Moving” (synonymous with “Improve movement”), “Self View” (synonymous with “values”) and “eat Better” (Synonymous with “user’s health”; [0156] teaches on Fig. 11A; the goal-based actions and responses in the goal-based workflow; the user sets a goal; [0157]- [0158] teach respectively on goals of “lose weight”, “improve movement”, which Examiner interprets to read on a future event selected from the “user’s health”, “lifestyle” and “challenges”; per [0112], the user must select a type of future event before being prompted to take an action, e.g., half marathon is selected before the user is prompted to take an action).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, so that prior to providing the user with an instruction to perform the activity of Merzenich, the user is instructed to select a type of future event, with the motivation of customizing content provided to the user that is specific to their goal (Brust [0076]) and providing appropriate suggestions to the user for them to take small steps toward their goal (Brust [0112]).
Regarding Claim 42, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 39. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide, by the one or more processors, prior to providing the instruction to perform [an action] ([0112] teaches on the goal being to “run a half marathon”; the goal engine suggests to the client begin by walking a mile during some schedule), an instruction for the user to select a category of the future event ([0120] teaches on Fig. 7B which teaches on the dashboard enabling the display and selection of one or multiple particular goals from “certain categories” such as lose weight, movement, eating or self-view; per [0112], the user must select a type of future event before being prompted to take an action, e.g., half marathon is selected before the user is prompted to take an action; half marathon is interpreted as being a “movement” category goal).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, so that prior to providing the user with an instruction to perform the activity of Merzenich, the user is instructed to select a type of future event, with the motivation of customizing content provided to the user that is specific to their goal (Brust [0076]) and providing appropriate suggestions to the user for them to take small steps toward their goal (Brust [0112]).
Regarding Claim 43, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 42. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches wherein the category of the future event is selected from the user's health, relationships, values, finances, enjoyment, charitable contributions, sobriety, small steps, achievement, future gratitude, challenges, lifestyle, or overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use ([0069] teaches on a user having a goal (“future event”) such as “lose a certain amount of weight” (interpreted as “related to user’s health”); [0069] also teaches on a user goal of “quit smoking” which is interpreted as “overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use”, “lifestyle”, and “user’s health” [0112] teaches on an example of a user having a goal of “run a half marathon” (future event); Examiner interprets running a half marathon to be related to the user’s health, achievement, lifestyle, and challenges).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, for the future event to be related to the user’s health, achievement, challenges, lifestyle and overcoming maladaptive behavior associated with substance use, with the motivation of setting a goal that will help the user to develop healthy habits, positive self-image and confidence (Brust [0070]).
Regarding Claim 44, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 42. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide, by the one or more processors, an instruction to select a timeframe for the future event (Brust [0069], teaching on data input including “a date to achieve the goal”; [0085] teaching on time or activity based goals may include a start and end date (interpreted as a “timeframe”); the user may change the start date which is interpreted as selecting a timeframe for the future event).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to instruct the user tin select a timeframe for a future event, with the motivation of setting up a plan to reach the goal that allows the user to do so in a healthy manner (Brust [0085]).
Regarding Claim 45, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 44. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches, wherein the future event may occur in less than a month ([0072] teaches on a weight loss goal of “lose 10kg in 2 weeks”).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to for a future event to occur in less than a month with the motivation of dividing goals into time-based goals which include setting a “short-term goal” for the user (Brust [0083]).
Regarding Claim 46, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 44. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches wherein the future event may occur in more than a month ([0088] teaches on “long term goal” having performance in 30 days – 6 months).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to for a future event to occur in more than a month with the motivation of enabling the user to set a long-term goal so that the system can respond by providing appropriate short term and intermediate goals to measure progress and provide incremental progress towards the ultimate long term goal (Brust [0083]).
Regarding Claim 47, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 39. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further configured to: instruct the user to generate one or more visual cues based on the information on the future event provided by the user (Paras. [0156-[0159] teach on a user being prompted to select a category of goal and a subsequent more specific goal for the category; After the goal(s) is/are chosen, [0160] teaches on the user choosing a “motivating reason” for the goal which may be “randomly displayed on a display device used by the client”; a “motivating reason” which is displayed on a device of the user with regards to a future event (goal) is interpreted as “generating a visual cue”); see also Fig. 7A, showing “I want to lose 20 pounds in 20 weeks to live a healthier life” – Examiner interprets “live a healthier life!” to read on a visual cue based on the future event (weight loss goal); see also Fig. 11A).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to instruct the user to generate a visual cue based on the future event information, with the motivation of providing motivational content to the user to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]).
Regarding Claim 48, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 47. Merzenich does not disclose but Brust further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further configured to: wherein the visual cue is an image or text, including free text provided by the user (Paras. [0156-[0159] teach on a user being prompted to select a category of goal and a subsequent more specific goal for the category; After the goal(s) is/are chosen, [0160] teaches on the user choosing a “motivating reason” for the goal which may be “randomly displayed on a display device used by the client”; a “motivating reason” which is displayed on a device of the user with regards to a future event (goal) is interpreted as “generating a visual cue”); see also Fig. 11A; per Fig. 7A, the motivation may be in text format or image format, see Heart icon on right side with “My Motivation” which includes text “I love fruits & vegetables” and a picture of a child; Fig. 7A also shows the goal at the top regarding weight loss is “to live a healthier life” which is also interpreted as free text/text.)).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to provide text to the user providing a visual cue, with the motivation of providing motivational content to the user to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]).
Regarding Claim 49, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide a subsequent instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging (“providing an instruction”) to the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or substance use words”, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word); see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and/or substance use words; [0159] teaches on using a computer system with the present invention having a “CPU”; Examiner submits that this limitation mirrors the next to last limitation in Claim 38 except that the instant claim recites a “subsequent” instruction. The limitations of instant claim 55 amount to duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Claim 55 is merely repeating the same steps as Claim 38 at a later (“subsequent”) point in time and does not yield a new or unexpected result).
Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust, which is directed to goal-based content selection and delivery for helping an individual to achieve a goal or set of goals, teaches:
provide a prompt containing the visual cue related to the information on the future event (Paras. [0156]-[0159] teach on a user being prompted to select a category of goal and a subsequent more specific goal for the category; After the goal(s) is/are chosen, [0160] teaches on the user choosing a “motivating reason” for the goal which may be “randomly displayed on a display device used by the client”; a “motivating reason” which is displayed on a device of the user with regards to a future event (goal) is interpreted as “generating a visual cue”); see also Fig. 11A; per Fig. 7A, the motivation may be in text format or image format, see Heart icon on right side with “My Motivation” which includes text “I love fruits & vegetables” and a picture of a child; Fig. 7A/7C shows goal “currently pursuing” (future event) is “I want to lose 20 pounds in 20 weeks to live a healthier life” where “live a healthier life” is a visual cue related to the weight loss goal (future event); the dashboard contains “things to do” which is interpreted as a prompt to take an action; the suggested actions are related to the information on future event)) and an instruction to perform an activity related to the visual cue ([0103] teaches on sending one or more reminders to the user in connection with the goal-based workflow; [0104] teaches on after the client has chosen a suggested action, the system provides an appropriate prompt; Fig. 7A shows “Things to do” (prompt) with instructions to perform activities related to the visual cue of “live a healthier life”, e.g., Do Tai Chi exercises, cycle to the top of a hill).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt to the user containing the visual cue and an instruction to perform an activity related to the visual cue, to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]) and to use the prompts to push the client towards his or her goal rather than simply monitoring progress towards the goal (Brust [0130]).
Regarding Claim 50, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 49. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches wherein, the prompt is a timeline identifying more than one visual cues (see Fig. 7A, star icon near top includes a progress bar showing the user is at 60% of their goal completion; Examiner interprets 0%, 60%, 100% to be more than one visual cues of progress; Examiner also interprets “3 days left” beside timeline to be a visual cue associated with the timeline).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt in the form of a timeline identifying more than one visual cue, with the motivation of displaying the status of a particular goal for the user (Brust [0120]).
Regarding Claim 51, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of claim 49. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches wherein the timeline automatically updates based on the time tagged to the visual cue (see Fig. 7A, star icon near top includes a progress bar showing the user is at 60% of their goal completion with “3 days left” showing beside the timeline).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to automatically update a timeline based on time tagged to a visual cue, with the motivation of displaying the status of a particular goal for the user (Brust [0120]).
Regarding Claim 52, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 49. Merzenich further discloses wherein the activity includes an audio recording or a textual description ([0305] teaches on the Name the Color game; “the game instructs the game participant to move a cursor…”; [0332] teaches on a controller device containing the gameplay software for providing instructions either virtually or aurally).
Regarding Claim 53, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 39. Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: provide following performance of the activity to provide information, a prompt related to the information on the future event ([0084] teaches on a client setting an overall goal (information related to a future event); [0086] in the event of a client establishing a long-term goal, the system may respond by providing short- and intermediate-term goals; the short- and intermediate- term goals may be provided through use of suggested action and suggested action messages (interpreted as prompts related to the information on the future event).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt related to the information on the future event after it has been provided by the user, with the motivation of breaking a long-term goal into short- and intermediate- term goals to measure progress and to provide suggested actions to increment progress towards their ultimate goal (Brust [0086]).
Regarding Claim 56, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Brust teach the limitations of Claim 39. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: provide a subsequent instruction to perform an activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or one or more of the plurality of substance use words ([0306] teaches on the game challenging (“providing an instruction”) to the user to select the button whose label matches the color of the challenge word (“perform an activity”); Examiner interprets selecting a button for a color whose label matches the color of the challenge word to read on broadest reasonable interpretation of “refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of memory words and/or substance use words”, as the user is selecting a word based on matching color and not the challenge word itself, where the challenge word may be either a trigger word or neutral word (substance use word or memory word); see Fig. 54 where “rails” is the challenge word (interpreted as “memory word” as it is not associated with alcoholism substance use word examples provided in [0306]; “rails” is accompanied by 4 color words; selecting a color word is an activity that is “refraining” from selecting one or more memory and/or substance use words; [0159] teaches on using a computer system with the present invention having a “CPU”; Examiner submits that this limitation mirrors the next to last limitation in Claim 38 except that the instant claim recites a “subsequent” instruction. The limitations of instant claim 55 amount to duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Claim 55 is merely repeating the same steps as Claim 38 at a later (“subsequent”) point in time and does not yield a new or unexpected result.).
provide, following performance of the activity to refrain from selecting one or more of the plurality of [stimuli] and presentation of one or more of the plurality of [stimuli] ([0205]-[0206] teach on one embodiment including a training program with a task being presented with positive stimuli and stimuli to be ignored; in addressing a specific psychological condition involving stimuli to be ignored, the stimuli to be ignored could be images of fattening food from which the user trains to divert their attention; the dieter instead attends to stimuli like images of delicious, healthy food and positive images), ([0206], presenting subsequent images).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose refraining from selecting “memory words” while “substance words” are presented. However, in a separate embodiment, Merzenich discloses memory words and substance user words were old and well known in the art of computerized healthcare for digital therapeutics before the effective filing date of the instant application (para. [0306]), to arrive at a system that would provide images to a user following performance of the activity to refrain from selecting one or more stimuli while a different type of stimuli is being presented (e.g., the memory words/substance use words).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the embodiments of Merzenich directed to presenting stimuli that the user should ignore or focus on, with a different embodiment utilizing memory words and substance use words, because: both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied; the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving an activity performed by a user interacting with a computerized therapy application; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter regarding a computerized therapy application and being disclosed in the same reference.
Merzenich does not disclose, but Brust further teaches:
the prompt related to the information on the future event (Paras. [0156]-[0159] teach on a user being prompted to select a category of goal and a subsequent more specific goal for the category; After the goal(s) is/are chosen, [0160] teaches on the user choosing a “motivating reason” for the goal which may be “randomly displayed on a display device used by the client”; a “motivating reason” which is displayed on a device of the user with regards to a future event (goal) is interpreted as “generating a visual cue”); see also Fig. 11A; per Fig. 7A, the motivation may be in text format or image format, see Heart icon on right side with “My Motivation” which includes text “I love fruits & vegetables” and a picture of a child; Fig. 7A/7C shows goal “currently pursuing” (future event) is “I want to lose 20 pounds in 20 weeks to live a healthier life” where “live a healthier life” is a visual cue related to the weight loss goal (future event); the dashboard contains “things to do” which is interpreted as a prompt to take an action; the suggested actions are related to the information on future event)).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt to the user related to the future event, to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]) and to use the prompts to push the client towards his or her goal rather than simply monitoring progress towards the goal (Brust [0130]).
Regarding Claim 65, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Brust, which is directed to goal-based content selection and delivery for helping an individual to achieve a goal or set of goals, teaches: wherein the one or more processors further configured to: generate one or more cue words or images based on the information on the future event provided by the user; and wherein the prompt related to the information on the future event comprises the one or more cue words or images (Fig. 7A, showing the currently pursing goal pertaining to lose 20 pounds in 20 weeks (future event provided by user); Examiner interprets “live a healthier life” being a prompt related to the information on the future event consisting of cue words based on the information for the future event).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt to the user including a cue word based on information provided, to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]) and to use the prompts to push the client towards his or her goal rather than simply monitoring progress towards the goal (Brust [0130]).
Regarding Claim 71, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Brust, which is directed to goal-based content selection and delivery for helping an individual to achieve a goal or set of goals, teaches:, wherein the one or more processors further configured to: determine a time at which to provide the instruction to perform the activity ([0102]-[0103] teach on providing suggested actions to work towards a goal to a user; suggested actions may have a designated time of day associated with it), and
wherein providing the instruction to perform the activity further comprises providing the instruction at the determined time ([0102]-[0103] teaches on providing a reminder to the client to perform an activity at the designated time of day, e.g., morning when the action is for breakfast).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to determine a specific time to provide instructions to the user to perform Merzenich’s activity of refraining from selecting one or more of the plurality of substance use words and/or the plurality of memory words, with the motivation of providing the reminder at a time designated by the user and to remind them to perform the activity around the time the designated time arrives (Brust [0102]-[0103]).
Regarding Claim 74, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Brust, which is directed to goal-based content selection and delivery for helping an individual to achieve a goal or set of goals, teaches: wherein a prompt is provided following at least 1 day, 5 days, 1 week, or one month following the providing of the instruction to perform an activity to provide information on a future event ([0090]-[0095], teaching on a ‘playlist’ of suggested actions presented to the client for meeting a goal; the playlist may provide suggested actions over a period of time such as a day, week, month etc.; if the suggested actions of the playlist are presented for meeting a “goal” (future event), Examiner interprets that the user has previously been instructed to provide, and has provided, information on the future event); showing a suggested action at a particular time point are interpreted as a prompt).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Brust, to provide a prompt to the user at particular intervals of time after the user provided the information on a future event, to improve the likelihood of them performing an action to work towards their goal (Brust [0059]) and to use a prompt to push the client towards his or her goal rather than simply monitoring progress towards the goal (Brust [0130]).
Claim(s) 57-59, 61, 63, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et. al. (US Publication 20160155353A1) in view of Vaughan et. al. (US Publication 20190019581A1) and further in view of Berka et. al. (US Publication 20100292545 A1) as applied to Claim 38 above, and further in view of Mondal et. al. (US Publication 20230337963A1).
Regarding Claim 57, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Mondal, which is directed to an impairment testing platform, teaches: wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide an instruction to perform an activity to select all of the memory words from a plurality of words ([0043] teaches on a device reading out 20 words to a user; after an adjustable time delay (immediately, 5 minutes, 20 minutes) the user is asked to recall the words that were read out loud using the smart device; the words are displayed on the screen and may be a pool of words that were read and not read through the speaker; the user has to identify the words that were read from the list; Examiner interprets this to read on ‘select all’ of the words from a plurality (‘pool of words that were read and not read’) as it discloses “recall the words that were read”); Examiner interprets a ‘smart device’ as necessarily having a processor).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Mondal, to provide an instruction to the user to select all of a previously provided series of words (e.g., the “memory words” as taught by Merzenich, which are words different than the substance use/trigger words), with the motivation of assessing the individual’s memory (Mondal [0043]).
Regarding Claim 58, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Mondal, which is directed to an impairment testing platform, teaches: wherein the one or more processors further configured to: provide an instruction to perform an activity to select one or more of the memory words from a plurality of words ([0043] teaches on a device reading out 20 words to a user; after an adjustable time delay (immediately, 5 minutes, 20 minutes) the user is asked to recall the words that were read out loud using the smart device; the words are displayed on the screen and may be a pool of words that were read and not read through the speaker; the user has to identify the words that were read from the list; Examiner interprets this to read on ‘select one or more’ of the words from a plurality (‘pool of words that were read and not read’) as it discloses “recall the words that were read”); Examiner interprets a ‘smart device’ as necessarily having a processor).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Mondal, to provide an instruction to the user to select all of a previously provided series of words (e.g., the “memory words” as taught by Merzenich, which are words different than the substance use/trigger words), with the motivation of assessing the individual’s memory (Mondal [0043]).
Regarding Claim 59, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Mondal teach the limitations of Claim 57. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: determine a score indicating a percentage of correct interactions with the memory words ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers for games (activities), which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined).
select the [difficulty level] based on the score ([0180]-[0181] teach on the games adjusting to an individual’s performance level; the system sustains an individual’s performance at a challenging 80-90% level of performance success; the continuously-adjusted adaptability is adjusted across sessions to ensure games become more challenging at exactly the appropriate rate for a specific individual’s rate).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose selecting “memory words” based on the score. However, in a separate embodiment, Merzenich also discloses memory words were old and well known in the art of computerized healthcare before the effective filing date of the instant application (para. [0306]), to arrive at a system that would select a plurality of memory words based on the use’s score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the embodiments of Merzenich directed to selecting a difficulty level for a user based on their score and with a different embodiment utilizing memory words in an activity the user must perform, because: both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied; the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving an activity performed by a user interacting with a computerized therapy application; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter regarding a computerized therapy application and being disclosed in the same reference.
Regarding Claim 61, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 60. Merzenich further discloses wherein the score is determined by the number of correct interactions, speed of selections, or both during performance of the activity ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers for games (activities), which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined).
Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka do not explicitly teach that the score is for “selecting all memory words from a plurality of words”, but this element is taught by Mondal:
select all memory words from a plurality of words ([0043] teaches on a device reading out 20 words to a user; the user is subsequently asked to recall the words that were read out loud using the smart device; the words are displayed on the screen and may be a pool of words that were read and not read through the speaker; the user has to identify the words that were read from the list; Examiner interprets this to read on ‘select all’ of the words from a plurality (‘pool of words that were read and not read’) as it discloses “recall the words that were read”).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Mondal, to select all of a of the memory words of Merzenich, with the motivation of assessing the individual’s memory (Mondal [0043]).
Regarding Claim 63, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: determine a score indicating correct interactions, speed of the selections, or both during performance of the activity ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers for games (activities), which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined); and
determine, responsive to the score satisfying a threshold, an increase in [difficulty] for a subsequent activity to refrain from selecting a plurality of memory words, an activity to refrain from selecting a plurality of substance use words, or an activity to select all memory words from a plurality of words ([0173] teaches on games including multiple levels and multiple stages; game participant is required to achieve a certain threshold of performance in order to “unlock” another, more difficult level; Examiner submits that descriptions at [0169]-[0173] are high-level “General Characteristics” of the training program comprising a plurality of games or exercises and therefore includes the recited activity, e.g., paras. [0304]-[0306] as discussed with respect to parent claim 38).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose that the game is made more difficult by increasing a number of words, however, this element is taught by Berka:
increase in ([0040] teaches on presenting the subject with a number of words to memorize, e.g., 3, 5, or 7 words to memorize; the subject can first be administered an easy version with 3 words and then increasingly difficult versions with words increasing to 8).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan with these teachings of Berka, so that the user of Merzenich’s system is presented an increased number of words as a means of making the activity more difficult, with the motivation of increasing the number of words the user must memorize to gradually to increase difficulty (Berka [0040]).
Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka do not explicitly teach that the score is for “selecting all memory words from a plurality of words”, but this element is taught by Mondal:
select all memory words from a plurality of words ([0043] teaches on a device reading out 20 words to a user; the user is subsequently asked to recall the words that were read out loud using the smart device; the words are displayed on the screen and may be a pool of words that were read and not read through the speaker; the user has to identify the words that were read from the list; Examiner interprets this to read on ‘select all’ of the words from a plurality (‘pool of words that were read and not read’) as it discloses “recall the words that were read”).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Mondal, to select all of a of the memory words of Merzenich, with the motivation of assessing the individual’s memory (Mondal [0043]).
Regarding Claim 64, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Mondal teach the limitations of Claim 59. Merzenich further discloses wherein the one or more processors further configured to: display [calculate] the score indicating at least one of a percentage of correct interactions, speed of selections, or both during one or more activities ([0307] teaches on ranking a participant’s performance in a game against other participants, where [0307] teaches on tracking the participant’s response time and indication/measure of the participant’s speed; [0181] teaches on maintaining an individual’s performance at 80-90% correct answers for games (activities), which is interpreted as indicating that a score indicating correct interactions is determined).
Merzenich does not explicitly disclose that the score id displayed. However, this element of displaying a score is taught by Berka:
display a score (Fig. 2A showing “Correct Response” as a percentage correct for different time periods).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka/Mondal with these teachings of Berka, to display the score, with the motivation of using the score to tracking the user’s progress (Berka [0040]).
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et. al. (US Publication 20160155353A1) in view of Vaughan et. al. (US Publication 20190019581A1) and further in view of Berka et. al. (US Publication 20100292545 A1) as applied to Claim 38 above, and further in view of Luderer et. al. (US Publication 20200187777A1).
Regarding Claim 69, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Luderer, which is directed to a digital therapeutic to optimize induction of buprenorphine-containing products, teaches: wherein the user is administered an effective amount of a medication comprising at least one of naloxone, naltrexone, nalmefene, samidorphan, nalorpine, levallorphan, nalodeine, alvimopan, methylnatrexone, naloxegol, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, gabapentin, methadone, buprenorphine, or lofexidine, or a glp-1 agonist ([0008] teaches on administering a recommended dosage of a buprenorphine-containing product to a patient; [0030] teaches on administering buprenorphine-containing products, such as standalone buprenorphine, products including buprenorphine, as and naloxone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Luderer, to administer an appropriate dosage of buprenorphine or naloxone to a patient undergoing the digital therapeutic program of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka for delivering intervention techniques, with the motivation of combining the digital therapeutic with traditional drug therapy (Luderer [0030]).
Claim(s) 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et. al. (US Publication 20160155353A1) in view of Vaughan et. al. (US Publication 20190019581A1) and further in view of Berka et. al. (US Publication 20100292545 A1) as applied to Claim 38 above, and further in view of Manley et. al. (US Publication 20160314269A1).
Regarding Claim 70, Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka teach the limitations of Claim 38 but do not teach the following. Manley, which is directed to a system and method for providing an interactive avatar substance abuse program assistant, teaches receive a request from the user indicating an onset of the behavior associated with the substance use; and initiate responsive to receiving the request, the instructions for activities to address maladaptive behaviors associated with substance use in the user (Abstract teaches on a SaaA service for outpatient substance abuse program; [0011], teaching on a method for providing an interactive avatar substance abuse program assistant which includes receiving a contact request from a user related to provision of an avatar based substance abuse program; identifying the user from contact information in the request; retrieving avatar information associated with the user; and initiating contact with one or more therapists located remotely to said user and connected to the system and generating a therapist avatar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka with these teachings of Manley, to enable a user to request therapy for a substance abuse problem and subsequently initiating the therapy program (e.g., the digital therapeutics of Merzenich/Vaughan/Berka) for addressing maladaptive behaviors, with the motivation of allowing an individual suffering with a substance abuse program needing help to request help even when they are not in the vicinity of a therapist or rehabilitation center (Manley [0003]-[0004]).
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20220028528A1, teaching on a digital therapeutics system for treating health conditions including
US Publication 20140349261 A1, teaching on a therapeutic video game device and method for cognitive bias modification which may be used for treating addiction
US Publication 20200372990 A1, teaching on systems and methods for modifying treatment of a patient using a digital therapeutic
US Publication 20210162217A1, teaching on improving addiction in a patient using cue reactivity using an application running on a mobile device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682