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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the “accessing” step, “associated a digital avatar” should be amended to: “associated with a digital avatar”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0312619) in view of in view of Ohnemus (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0350451).
Regarding claim 1:
Kaleal teaches: a method (claim 10, a method) comprising:
receiving sensor data from one or more sensors (paras. 28-31, 48-53, non-limiting examples of sensors to capture physiological/biometric/movement and/or motion data of a user), …;
accessing avatar information associated a digital avatar that is associated with the individual (paras. 27, 33-40, access a virtual avatar associated with a user whose behavior and/or appearance changes based in part on received physical and physiological information and image data about a user);
updating the avatar information based at least in part on the sleep data (Id. and see discussion below re: sleep data); and
generating and presenting a display based at least in part on the updated avatar information (Id., e.g. paras. 27, 33-44, a display is presented on a display screen such as that described in para. 59, 85 or shown in Figs. 5-6).
Re: the sensor data being associated with a sleep session of an individual; determining sleep data for the sleep session based at least in part on the sensor data…and updating the avatar based at least in part on the sleep data, consider the following.
Kaleal also teaches monitoring user sleep patterns as part of its system and methods (see e.g. paras. 228, 231, 245). While Kaleal does not precisely specify sleep sessions but teaches/suggests same, in the interest of compact prosecution, Ohnemus teaches that it is known to obtain sensor data in relation to sleep monitoring (i.e. sensor data associated with a sleep session). See e.g. Ohnemus, paras. 58, 78, 87, 181. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the avatar of Kaleal (note: Ohnemus also teaches avatars, paras. 83-84), is updated based at least in part on sleep data, per both references, is all is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Kaleal teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein generating and presenting the display includes generating and presenting the digital avatar, and
wherein the digital avatar based at least in part on the updated avatar information is visually distinguishable from the digital avatar prior to updating the avatar information paras. 27, 33-44, access a virtual avatar associated with a user whose behavior and/or appearance changes, based in part, on received physical and physiological information and image data about a user. The avatar can also be continuously updated (para. 278)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with the most relevant visual feedback tailored to their current state.
Regarding claim 4:
Kaleal teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein the avatar information includes an avatar model usable to generate the digital avatar,
wherein updating the avatar information includes updating the avatar model usable to generate the digital avatar (this is taught in multiple alternate ways, first, para. 241, 300, the avatar model can be a use- input model, to apply to the user’s digital avatar; alternatively, para. 36, avatar model is taught by “model user”; alternatively, para. 57; alternatively, para. 202. Or para. 211. Also, updating of avatars is taught at para. 278. A model that is used to generate user avatar will be updated when said avatar is updated).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with the most relevant visual feedback tailored to their current state, in desired model form.
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, wherein generating and presenting the display includes: generating a message based at least in part on the sleep data; and presenting the message, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Kaleal teaches that its avatar can generate/display/present messages (e.g. para. 133, 211, 278). Modifying the applied references, such that the messages are generated and presented based on sleep data, as mapped in claim 1, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14:
Kaleal teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein generating and presenting the display includes presenting the digital avatar to a user other than the individual (paras. 220-222, 278-79, sharing of user’s avatars with others and/or in a social networking setting is taught).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate sharing of information.
Regarding claim 15:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, wherein updating the avatar information includes i) modifying a visual representation of a mood of the digital avatar; ii) modifying a virtually-wearable accessory associated with the digital avatar; iii) modifying an achievement indicator associated with the digital avatar; iv) causing the digital avatar to perform a predefined action when presented; or v) any combination of i-iv, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Kaleal teaches modifying/adapting/updating the avatar based on specific program, routine or activity, the determined deviation (or adherence), user profile information (e.g., user preferences, historical user behavior, user health information, etc.), user context information, and known capabilities of the avatar, using various classification (explicitly and/or implicitly trained) schemes and/or systems (para. 142). The expressed emotion (mood) of the avatar and/or predefined actions can also be modified (para. 112). Modifying the applied references, such that the avatar updating includes modifying mood of the avatar, predefined action or any combination thereof, as per Kaleal, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17:
Kaleal teaches: the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving additional sensor data from the one or more sensors or one or more additional sensors, the additional sensor data being associated with activity of the individual outside of the sleep session (e.g. paras. 28-30);
determining activity data based at least in part on the additional sensor data (paras. 28/30, activity data can be any one of the many listed data of a user’s health/physiological state activity); and
updating the avatar information based at least in part on the determined activity data (para. 27, 278).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with the most relevant visual feedback tailored to their current state.
Regarding claim 20:
Kaleal teaches: the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving facial scan data from the one or more sensors or from one or more additional sensors, the facial scan data being associated with a face of the individual (para. 108, facial image data, 2D and 3D data); and
updating the avatar information based at least in part on the received facial scan data (para. 108, 276).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with the most relevant visual feedback tailored to their current state.
Regarding claim 21:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 20, wherein updating the avatar information based at least in part on the received facial scan data includes: creating a three-dimensional model based at least in part on the received facial scan data (Kaleal, para. 29, generating 3D models based on facial scan data is taught. See also para. 56);
generating the digital avatar using the three-dimensional model; and associating the generated digital avatar with the avatar information (Kaleal, avatars can be 3D, as mapped in claim 1 and/or para. 34. Avatar information associated with avatars of users is also taught and mapped in claim 1. And Kaleal also teaches modeling avatars to replicate user appearance as from a 3D image or 3D imaging device data. See paras. 57 and 238, 286. This teaches/suggests generating the avatar using the 3D model, and the associating step),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 21, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising: for each of one or more participants, receiving participant avatar information associated with a respective participant avatar,
wherein the respective participant avatar information is updated based at least in part on respective sleep data for the respective participant; and
presenting the one or more participant avatars in conjunction with presenting the display, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Kaleal teaches that its system and avatars can have multiple users and can be shared with same, such as in a social networking environment, share environment or group environment (paras. 220-222, 278). This teaches multiple participants having avatars. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the participant avatars are updated based at least in part on sleep data, as mapped in claim 1, and presented, as taught by Kaleal in conjunction with display, as also mapped in claim 1, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24:
Kaleal teaches: a system (Fig. 1: 100 system) comprising: a control system including one or more processors (Fig. 1: 106, client device can be the control system, and the client device has one or more processors; see paras. 61-62); and a memory having stored thereon machine readable instructions (para. 61); wherein the control system is coupled to the memory (para. 61 and/or claim 1), and the method of claim 1 is implemented when the machine executable instructions in the memory are executed by at least one of the one or more processors of the control system (para. 61 and/or claim 1).
Regarding claim 28: see claim 24.
The system of claim 28 and the functions it performs corresponds to the system of claim 24 and the functions that it performs (i.e., the method of claim 1).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Pflug (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0240798).
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising establishing a milestone associated with the individual (Kaleal, para. 127, user milestones can be established),
wherein updating the avatar information includes updating a milestone completion score associated with the established milestone based at least in part on the sleep data (Kaleal, para. 85, 250-61, 280 avatar modifications can be based on user progress toward goals/milestones. Completion scores can also be shown. See Figs. 6-7) (Pflug, scores related to or based on sleep data are taught. See paras. 19-21, 36, 41-43, claim 6, Fig. 1),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 7, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above. Modifying the applied references, such to include establishing a milestone, per Kaleal and updating the avatar information (also per Kaleal) including updating a milestone completion score (Kaleal, Pflug) based at least in part on sleep data (i.e. less time to fall asleep, sleep quality metrics, sleep apnea events, other sleep related metrics per Pflug that can be milestones), would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
Pflug, Khaleal and/or Ohnemus teaches: the method of claim 7, wherein establishing the milestone is based at least in part on historical sleep data associated with a previous sleep session (Pflug, historical data can be used. See par. 31) (Ohnemus, para. 42, historical data to establish user health is known) (Khaleal, historical data, para. 76, 126, 158).
Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that establishing the milestone is based on historical sleep data (i.e. milestone is reducing time to fall asleep, for example), is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 7, wherein generating and presenting the display includes: determining that the milestone has been achieved based at least in part on updated milestone completion score (see mapping to claim 7, the goal or score/milestone that has been set will be achieved when the score is at the desired value); and
generating the display in response to determining that the milestone has been achieved (mapping to claim 7, e.g. Khaleal, Figs. 6-7 and mapped in claim 7), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
Regarding: the method of claim 9, wherein determining that the milestone has been achieved is further based at least in part on historical sleep data associated with a previous sleep session (see mapping to claim 8).
Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that determining the milestone is reached/achieved is based on historical sleep data (i.e. milestone is reducing time to fall asleep, for example), is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 7, wherein generating and presenting the display includes: determining that the milestone completion score falls below a threshold score;
generating a message in response to determining that the milestone completion score falls below the threshold score; and
presenting the message, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Khaleal teaches that its avatar reaction can be adjusted depending on user activity, such as whether a user deviates from a requirement or goal (paras. 167-75, 229-30), and avatars can give messages to users regarding how to correct deviations (para. 213). Modifying the applied references, such that the teachings of Khaleal are applied to milestones as mapped in claim 7, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, wherein the sleep data includes i) a sleep state; ii) a sleep stage; or iii) both i and ii (Pflug, para. 12, sleep metrics can be either sleep state or stage, para. 43, sleep stages, sleep states),
wherein updating the avatar information based at least in part on the sleep data includes updating the avatar information based at least in part on i) the sleep state; ii) the sleep stage; or iii) both i and ii. (see mapping to claim 1),
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 16, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Tiron (WO 2020/104465 A2).
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1 wherein determining the sleep data includes determining a respiratory therapy score associated with use of a respiratory therapy system by the individual during the sleep session (para. 236, 241, 301 which teach AHI apnea-hypopnea index scores, respiratory event score, in combination with claim 21, respiratory therapy device, such as a CPAP (para. 18)), and
wherein updating the avatar information is based at least in part on the respiratory therapy score (see mapping to claim 1), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Kaleal teaches that respiratory physical data can be captured, as well as analysis thereof as it relates to the respiratory system (e.g. paras. 48, 92, 261, 286), and avatar information can be updated accordingly, as mapped in claim 1. Tiron teaches data that can be obtained via a respiratory therapy system, such as respiratory therapy scores, as mapped above. Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to include the medical/physiological data of Tiron, in the system/methods of Kaleal, both references concerned with user health information and monitoring, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Jakobsson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0075884).
Regarding claim 12:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, wherein updating the avatar information includes: determining that an achievement token is earned based at least in part on the sleep data; and
updating the avatar information to indicate that the digital avatar has earned the achievement token, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Jakobsson teaches that achievement tokens are known, in relation to social engagement for example (para. 422). Modifying the applied references, such to apply this to the avatar system of claim 1, to motivate and/or reward users when they accomplish a health goal or metric with regard to sleep data, i.e. as avatar encouragement (Kaleal, para. 37, 40, 132), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 12, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Hudson (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0121873 A1).
Regarding claim 18:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a selection for a sleep accessory; and
updating the avatar information based on the selection for the sleep accessory, wherein generating and presenting the display includes presenting the digital avatar as wearing the selected sleep accessory, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Hudson teaches that avatars with a mask (i.e. a CPAP mask) is known. See para. 120. Kaleal teaches that user interfaces for selection of relevant items for user benefit is known (i.e. “select” is present over 100 times in Kaleal, and can be in selecting relevant user data, activities, or information for designing routines, medical information, health programs, etc.). Modifying the applied references, such that a user is able to select, per Kaleal, a sleep accessory, per Hudson, and updating the avatar as taught by Hudson, with additional motivation to allow a user to engage in troubleshooting or training on how to use the selected sleep accessory (Hudson teaches that more than one type of sleep accessory is known, see paras. 39-42. See also Hudson, Figs. 2A-2C) and to have a system capable of use across different sleep accessories, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Hudson and Bradski (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0094981 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 18, further comprising presenting an offer to purchase the sleep accessory in association with the presented digital avatar wearing the selected sleep accessory, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bradski teaches that presenting users offers to purchase items is known (paras. 1616-17). Hudson teaches an avatar wearing a selected sleep accessory. Modifying the applied references, such that the selection is made in view of user interest for potential purchase, and purchase related options are then presented in response to user input (i.e. selection), is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 19, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaleal in view of in view of Ohnemus and further in view of Ma Z, Hyde P, Drinnan M, Munguia J. Development of a smart-fit system for CPAP interface selection. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine. 2021 Jan;235(1):44-53 (“Ma”).
Regarding claim 22:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 20, further comprising: identifying a set of one or more user interface models intended to fit the individual based at least in part on the facial scan data (Ma, Abstract, and pages 45-47); and
presenting the set of one or more user interface models to the individual (Ma, Id.), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Modifying the applied references, such that the facial scan data of Kaleal, and also taught by Ma, is used to identify interface models intended to fit, per Ma, and presented to the user, per Ma, and the interface/display of Kaleal, e.g. Fig. 7, is taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 22, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20150038806-A1 Personalized avatar responsive to user physical state and context
Systems and methods are disclosed that facilitate providing guidance to a user during performance of a program or routine using a personalized avatar. In an aspect, a system includes a reception component configured to receive physiological and movement information about a user during performance of a routine or program, and an analysis component configured to analyze the physiological and movement information based on reference physiological and movement metrics for the routine or the program to determine whether, how and to what degree the user deviates from requirements of the routine or the program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
