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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on July 31, 2025 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-7 recite “digitally monitoring” that should be corrected to –the digitally monitoring--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-20 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: monitoring a user first physical therapy performance, assessing divergence in user first physical therapy performance from a first physical therapy performance reference performance, receiving a user first pain assessment, providing a user mental pain management exercise, and receiving a user second pain assessment.
In claim 1, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper. For example, a physical therapist and/or a doctor (a person who monitors the recovery of another person), when assessing the effectiveness of the physical therapy assigned to a user, he/she would monitor the PT performance, either by visually monitor the progress, or by comparing the performance with the performance in previous PT sessions or with some reference data and some reasonably expectation based on his/her own experience. The difference between the performances or between the performance and the reference is the divergence. In order to gauge the effectiveness of the PT exercise, or whether it is suitable, the physical therapist may check if the pain level has any change before and after the exercise. The physical therapist may further assign mental pain management exercise if he/she determines that the mental exercise may help reduce the pain level. For another example, the user (the person (or the “another person” aforementioned) who is undergoing the recovery) may receive the instructions from the doctor or from the physical therapist and perform the above steps by himself/herself following the instructions given.
There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the PT performance is monitored, how the divergence is assessed, how the pain assessment is received, and how the mental pain management is provided . Therefore, a person would be able to perform the above step mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites an additional step of the PT performance monitoring and the divergence assessment are implemented “digitally”. This step represents a tool that is used to perform the abstract idea and is recited at a high level of generality. See below Step IIB for further details.
As a whole, the additional element merely serve to specify how the abstract idea is implemented, and it is implemented on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and assessment and the divergence are not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recites an additional step of the PT performance monitoring and the divergence assessment are implemented “digitally”. This step represents a tool that is used to perform the abstract idea and is recited at a high level of generality.
A digital platform that is used to track exercise progress and outcome merely represents an insignificant and conventional tool that is well-understood in the industry of healthcare, as evidenced by Stavric et al., “The effectiveness of self-guided digital interventions to improve physical activity and exercise outcomes for people with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Systematic Review. Front Rehabil. Sci. 2022 June 24. Vol. 3, Article 925620, hereinafter Stavric.
In Stavric, it teaches in the Abstract, Objective: “digital health interventions, especially those with minimal human contact, may offer a sustainable solution to accessing ongoing services and support for this population”. Methods: “a comprehensive and systematic search was conducted up to December 2021, through seven databases, for randomized trials that evaluated the effect of self-guided web- or internet-based PA interventions on physical activity or exercise outcomes”; and Conclusions: “Self-guided digital PA&E interventions provided a positive effect on PA immediately after the intervention. An unexpected and positive finding was a sustained increase in PA at follow-up”.
Accordingly, this additional step amounts to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity and well-known tools cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim hence is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims incorporate all the limitations of their respective independent claims. The following analysis focus on the limitations recited in the dependent claims to determine whether they merely recite further abstract idea, or whether or not they recite additional elements that may either amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in their respective independent claims, or may integrate the abstract idea in their respective independent claims to a practical application.
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
further defines the assessment done by a deep learning model (claims 7-9 - the DNN is used to apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the math calculation in the claim) without placing any limitation on how the DNN operates. The limitation amounts to 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));
further defining the mental pain management (claims 10-11);
further defining the assessment of the divergence (claims 12-13)
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
describing the type of recovery regimen (claims 2-4 – the type of recovery regimen does not alter how the abstract idea is performed. Note that the method starts with “monitoring the PT performance”, hence different recovery regimen may require different types of PT, yet regardless the type of PT, the PT performance would still be monitored);
describing the type of digital monitor (claims 5-6 –video recording and recording with markers are well-known routine and conventional tools – see the art rejection for support from the cited prior arts);
describing additional elements of reporting the divergence or pain assessment (claims 14-17 – these are addition steps of outputting the outcome of the abstract idea. Claim 14 reports (i.e., output) merely the divergence or the pain assessment. Claims 15-16 report (i.e., output) a value that is a quantification of the divergence. Claim 17 reports (i.e., output) an improvement that is a result of another comparison. These reporting is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application);
describing additional elements of reporting to a remote location or to a user community (claims 18-19 – these further defines where the reporting is sent to – sending the result to a remote location or to a specific population are well-known routine and conventional tools – see the art rejection for support from the cited prior arts);
describing an additional element of using an identification code (claim 20 - using an ID code to store the user’s profile is a well-known, routine and conventional tool – see the art rejection for support from the cited prior arts)
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based on the above consideration and analysis, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible, i.e., rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites steps (1) “monitoring a user first physical therapy performance and digitally assessing divergence” and steps (2) “receiving a first user pain assessment and providing a user mental pain management exercise, and receiving a second user pain assessment”. There is a missing link between the above steps (1) and steps (2). It is unclear whether the pain is resulted from the physical therapy performance, or if the physical therapy is supposed to ease up the pain. It is unclear if the level of the pain represents the degree of recovery. It is unclear if the mental pain management exercise is applied to ease up the pain resulted from the physical therapy. It is unclear how the steps (1) and (2) combined define the scope of the claimed method of assessing performance of a recovery regimen. Note that it appears that steps (1) and steps (2) are two independent portions of the method. Physical therapy is known in the field of art to be exercises related to body movement, while mental pain management excise is related to mental activities. Clarification with proper claim amendment is required.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “comparing the divergence…to the user first pain assessment” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. In claim 1, the divergence refers to a comparison between the PT performance. According to the rejection to claim 1 above, the PT performance has no link to the pain assessment. The divergence in PT performance and the pain assessment are two distinct properties. It is therefore unclear how the divergence may be compared to the pain assessment.
Claims 15-17: “the divergence in user previous physical therapy performance” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites that the report comprises “improvement for at least one …” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear how the “improvement” is defined. Secondly, assuming that the improvement is determined based on the comparison of two performances, since there is no guarantee how the user would perform on the PT, it is unclear how the report would always comprise an improvement. The scope hence is unclear.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren et al., US 2021/0225195 A1, hereinafter Shteren, in view of Shella et al., “Art therapy improves mood, and reduces pain and anxiety when offered at bedside during acute hospital treatment”. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 57 (2018) 59-64, hereinafter Shella.
Claim 1. Shteren teaches a method of assessing performance of a recovery regimen ([0013]: at-home rehabilitative and physical therapy monitoring – a method for improving exercise performance. In particular…a computing device and a sensor-less system configured to implement the method for improving exercise performance) - rehabilitative and physical therapy are recovery regimens, the method comprising
digitally ([0045]: a computer system engaging with an external database to execute a method for improving exercise performance) monitoring a user first physical therapy performance ([0028]: it is an object of the present invention to remove the necessity of face-to-face physical therapy sessions, while ensuring that real-time guidance is provided to a user for improving exercise performance),
digitally assessing divergence in user first physical therapy performance from a first physical therapy performance reference performance ([0016]: the motion analysis engine compares a first movement of the one or more movements to a predictive model associated with an ideal performance of the first movement) – the ideal performance is the “physical therapy performance reference performance” as claimed.
Shteren does not teach receiving a user first pain assessment, providing a user mental pain management exercise, and receiving a user second pain assessment.
However, in an analogous pain assessment and management field of endeavor, Shella teaches
receiving a user first pain assessment, providing a user mental pain management exercise, and receiving a user second pain assessment (p.60, Col. Right, ¶-2: At the start of the session, patients were asked to rate their mood, then anxiety, and then pain; and ¶-3: Patients then participated in an art therapy session…Type of media included primarily paint…Paint was defined as any media that could be applied fluidly, including acrylic on objects, canvas, or paper; watercolor on paper; and alcohol-based inks on tiles…At the end of the session, patients were asked to again rate mood, anxiety, and pain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Shteren and Catani combined employ such features associated with “receiving a user first pain assessment, providing a user mental pain management exercise, and receiving a user second pain assessment” as taught in Shella for the advantage of “engaging medical inpatients in the creation of art to encourage emotional and physical healing”, as suggested in Shella, Abstract.
The recited term “digitally” is interpreted that the monitoring step and the divergence assessing step are performed in an electronic platform, i.e., automated. This limitation hence is considered among various common practices that normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. Such an alternate configuration is considered merely automating a manual activity, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered routine expedients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive such a configuration through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). MPEP 2144.04.III.
Claim 4. Shteren further teaches that
the recovery regimen is a physical therapy intervention ([0013]: at-home rehabilitative and physical therapy monitoring – a method for improving exercise performance).
Claim 5. Shteren further teaches that digitally monitoring comprises
video recording (Claim 1: receiving video exercise data captured by a camera of the computing device, the video exercise data being associated with a user performing an active exercise).
Claim 7. Shteren further teaches that digitally assessing comprises
applying a deep learning model (claim 1: converting the video exercise data via a deep learning algorithm to one or more movements of a user’s skeleton performing the active exercise in real-time).
Claim 10. Shella further teaches that
The mental pain management comprises drawing (p.60, Col. Right, ¶-2: At the start of the session, patients were asked to rate their mood, then anxiety, and then pain; and ¶-3: Patients then participated in an art therapy session…Type of media included primarily paint…Paint was defined as any media that could be applied fluidly, including acrylic on objects, canvas, or paper; watercolor on paper; and alcohol-based inks on tiles…At the end of the session, patients were asked to again rate mood, anxiety, and pain).
Claims 12-15. Shteren further teaches
comparing the divergence in user first physical therapy performance to the user first pain assessment (claim 12); comparing the divergence in user first physical therapy performance to the user second pain assessment (claim 1: comparing a first movement of the one or more movements to a predictive model associated with an ideal performance of the first movement; assigning a confidence score to the comparison) – the comparison of the movement to a predictive model associated with an ideal performance would result in the divergence;
reporting at least one of the divergence in user first physical therapy performance, first user pain assessment and second user pain assessment to the user (claim 14) (claim 1: transmitting feedback data to a graphical user interface of the computing device for display to the user; and claim 8: the feedback data comprises the confidence score);
indicating a value for at least one previous physical performance of at least one of the divergence in user previous physical therapy performance, previous first user pain assessment and previous second user pain assessment to the user (claim 1: comparing a first movement of the one or more movements to a predictive model associated with an ideal performance of the first movement; assigning a confidence score to the comparison) – the confidence score is considered the “value” as claimed.
Claim 16. In regard to the reporting comprises indicating a value for at least five previous physical performances, This limitation is considered among various common practices that normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. Such an alternate configuration is considered merely duplication of parts, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered routine expedients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive such a configuration through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Since Shteren teaches that the value (i.e., the confidence score) is obtained by comparing the movement to the ideal performance, is provided on the GUI for display to the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the comparison repeatedly for different physical performance such that the value for a number of pervious physical performance, or at least 5 physical performances may be obtained through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17. Shteren further teaches that
the report comprises improvement for at least one previous physical performance of at least one of the divergence in user previous physical therapy performance, previous first user pain assessment and previous second user pain assessment to the user (claim 1: transmitting feedback data to a graphical user interface of the computing device for display to the user; and claim 8: the feedback data comprises the confidence score; [0058]: the patient (e.g., the user 102) may also engage in tests that will be later assessed by a clinician. The clinician analyzes the users motions and can track the users progress; [0079]: the motion analysis engine may generate a user profile…such that a doctor, a healthcare provider…may track the user’s physical or rehabilitative progress) – users progress is considered the “improvement” as claimed.
Claim 18. Shteren further teaches
reporting at least one of the divergence in user first physical therapy performance, first user pain assessment and second user pain assessment to a medical practitioner remote to the user ([0058]: the patient (e.g., the user 102) may also engage in tests that will be later assessed by a clinician. The clinician analyzes the users motions and can track the users progress; [0079]: the motion analysis engine may generate a user profile…such that a doctor, a healthcare provider…may track the user’s physical or rehabilitative progress; and [0089]: the computer readable program instructions may execute…entirely on the remote computer or server).
Claim 19. Shteren further teaches
reporting at least one of the divergence in user first physical therapy performance, first user pain assessment and second user pain assessment to a user community (claim 1: transmitting feedback data to a graphical user interface of the computing device for display to the user; [0058]: the patient (e.g., the user 102) may also engage in tests that will be later assessed by a clinician. The clinician analyzes the users motions and can track the users progress; [0079]: the motion analysis engine may generate a user profile…such that a doctor, a healthcare provider…may track the user’s physical or rehabilitative progress) - the doctor, the healthcare provider, the clinician and the user altogether is considered “a user community” as claimed.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren in view of Shella, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Page et al., US 2024/0268354 A1, hereinafter Page.
Claims 2-3. Shteren and Shella combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither of Shteren, Catani and Carnes teaches that the recovery regimen is an orthobiologic intervention recovery regimen and a surgical intervention recovery regimen.
However, in an analogous treatment monitoring and assessment field of endeavor, Page teaches that
the recovery regimen is an orthobiologic intervention recovery regimen (claim 2) and a surgical intervention recovery regimen (claim 3) ([0032]: the system may also be used to assess the effect of some treatment including pharmaceuticals, orthobiologics, physical therapy, recovery from surgical intervention…etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the recovery regime of Shteren and Shella combined employ such a feature of it being an orthobiologic intervention recovery regimen and a surgical intervention recovery regimen as taught in Page as an alternative regime associated with physical condition recovery.
Claims 6 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren in view of Shella, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Haas et al., US 2024/0260892 A1, hereinafter Haas.
Claim 6. Shteren and Shella combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Shteren nor Shella teaches that digitally monitoring comprises recording user position monitoring marker location.
However, in an analogous performance assessment field of endeavor, Haas teaches
recording user position monitoring marker location ([0039]: UE 102 can be a device associated with an individual for which motion monitoring serves are being provided. In some embodiments, UE 102 may correspond to a reflective marker in which movement data may be tracked via an imaging device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the digitally monitoring of Shteren and Shella combined employ such a feature of “recording user position monitoring marker location” as taught in Haas for the advantage of “providing a dynamic motion and pain measurement device for making a decision intelligence based computerized framework for deterministically monitoring and tracking the movement of a patient”, as suggested in Haas, [0002].
Claim 20. Shteren and Shella combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including “a diagnosis of the user, the first physical therapy performance reference performance, the user first physical therapy performance, the user mental pain management exercise, the user first pain assessment, and the user second pain assessment” (Shteren: [0013], [0016]; and Shella: p.60, Col. Right, ¶-2 and ¶-3).
Shteren further teaches a user profiling housing all the information ([0013]: at-home rehabilitative and physical therapy monitoring; and [0079]: the motion analysis engine may generate a user profile housing the information discussed above, such that a doctor, a healthcare provider, and/or the user may track the user’s physical or rehabilitative progress).
Neither Shteren nor Shella teaches that the patient profile is in a form of an identification code.
However, in an analogous…Hass teaches that the patient profile is in a form of
an identification code ([0123]: the system may provide a QR code that enables the entry of data via mobile phone camera…the forms may be tied to the patient record…The forms may aid in providing basic patient information, drugs, background information…In formation over time, such as improvements or declines in results from patient surveys can be mapped to treatment selection…to create predictions for optimal patient care).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the patient profile of Shteren and Shella combined employ such a feature of having a form as an identification code as taught in Haas for the advantage of “mapping to treatment selection for optimal patient care”, as suggested in Haas, [0123].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren in view of Shella, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sobol et al., US 2021/0319894 A1, hereinafter Sobol.
Claim 8. Shteren further teaches that
the applying a deep learning model comprises using a library (claim 1: comparing a first movement of the one or more movements to a predictive model associated with an ideal performance of the first movement; claim 2: extracting parameters associated with the first movement…; and claim 3: the external database is selected from the group consisting of a proprietary databased and an open-source database) – the database is considered the “library” as claimed.
Shteren does not teach that the library is a machine learning library.
However, in an analogous wearable device movement tracking data analysis field of endeavor, Sobol teaches that
the deep learning model comprises a machine learning library ([0169]: the wearable electronic device may be used in conjunction with a model such as a machine learning model to computer predicted outcomes derived from the data being acquired. In one form, a deep learning library-based framework (such as…PyTorch or the like) to train, validate and test certain machine learning models).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the deep learning model of Shteren and Shella combined employ such features of comprises a machine learning library as taught in Sobol for the advantage of “train, validate and test the deep learing models that are computationally-intensive”, as suggested in Sobol, [0169].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren in view of Shella and Sobol, as applied to claim 8, further in view of Krebs et al., US 2018/0014891 A1, hereinafter Krebs.
Claim 9. Shteren, Shella and Sobol combined teaches all the limitations of claim 8, including the machine learning library corresponding to a monitoring output (Shteren: claim 1, Sobol: [0169]).
Neither of Shteren, Sheela and Sobol teaches that the monitoring output is a position monitoring output associated with an implantable orthobiologic delivered to the user.
However, in an analogous patient monitoring field of endeavor, Krebs teaches
a position monitoring output associated with an implantable orthobiologic delivered to the user ([0062]: the surgical system 100 may be used for surgical planning and navigation…The implant may include…any other orthopedic implant including implants of more exotic implants such as orthobiologics, and [0037]: the tracking system 101 may…continually determine or track a pose of the relevant anatomy of the patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the monitoring output of Shteren, Shella and Sobol combined employ such a feature of “a position monitoring output associated with an implantable orthobiologic delivered to the user” as taught in Krebs for the advantage of “performing a revision surgery that allows a better recovery”, as suggested in Krebs, [0031].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shteren in view of Shella, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Catani et al., US 2015/0364057 A1, hereinafter Catani.
Claim 11. Shteren and Shella combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
Neither Shteren nor Shella teaches that the mental pain management comprises puzzle solving.
However, in an analogous patient condition monitoring field of endeavor, Catani teaches that
the mental pain management comprises puzzle solving ([0194]: the systems and methods described herein can allow a person to manage his/her wellness, health, an/or lifestyle using a convenient system that can help the person plan strategies for improving and/or mainlining his/her wellness, health, and/or lifestyle and/or that can help the person track his/her compliance with the strategies; [0242]: the activities input module 210 can provide users of the system 10 with an interface for inputting activities information regarding users…goal data (e.g., general areas of concern for the user such as…back pain…) and goal target…Activities intended to be performed…with a regularly occurring event, an/or with a certain type (e.g., mental…); [0270]: activities: to help deal with pain…pain relief activities…do a puzzle; and [0335]: The system can be configured to establish a baseline of happiness for the user, which can help the system track the user’s happiness level quantitatively over time…Establishing the baseline can include assessing an initial baseline of happiness for the user and adjusting the baseline over a thirty day period to better capture the user’s overall happiness…The assessment can include presenting the user with a series of questions that the system, e.g., an analysis module thereof, can be configured to use to establish an initial user fingerprint).
Catani teaches assessing happiness before (initial baseline) and after (over a 30-day period) the mental activities targeting for easing up the pain. It is generally anticipated, not only in the field of art, that happiness has an inverse correlation with the level of pain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mental pain management of Shteren and Shella combined employ such a feature of being puzzle solving as taught in Catani for the advantage of “allowing a person to manage his/her wellness, health, an/or lifestyle using a convenient system that can help the person plan strategies for improving and/or mainlining his/her wellness, health, and/or lifestyle and/or that can help the person track his/her compliance with the strategies”, as suggested in Catani, [0194].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798