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 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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 recite(s):
A method to facilitate reciprocal communication between a first user and a second user, the method comprising:
displaying, by a processor, a first user input screen on a user interface, wherein the first user input screen comprises a first menu having a plurality of primary graphics on a user interface, wherein the plurality of primary graphics is associated with a plurality of verbal cues, and wherein the plurality of primary graphics corresponds to parent taxonomy categories;
obtaining, by the processor, a first selection of a first graphic, from the plurality of primary graphics, from the first user;
displaying, by the processor, a plurality of secondary graphics on the user interface based on the first selection of the first graphic, wherein the plurality of secondary graphics corresponds to child taxonomy categories of a first graphic parent taxonomy category;
obtaining, by the processor, a second selection of a second graphic, from the plurality of secondary graphics, from the first user;
modelling, by the processor, a sentence based on the first selection and the second selection, wherein the sentence is associated with verbal cues that the first user wants to communicate;
obtaining, by the processor, a first submission from the first user to communicate the sentence with the second user;
causing, by the processor, transmission of a first audio signal to a speaker in response to the first submission, wherein the speaker is configured to output a first audio that corresponds to the sentence;
displaying, by the processor, a transition screen on the user interface in response to a first audio signal transmission, wherein the transition screen indicates change of turn to the second user to communicate with the first user, wherein the transition screen comprises a timer indicating a time limit during which the second user needs to respond, and wherein the transition screen comprises an enter button;
displaying, by the processor, a second user input screen on the user interface for the second user to communicate with the first user when the second user clicks the enter button on the transition screen, wherein the second user input screen comprises a second menu having a set of inputs on the user interface for the second user to communicate with the first user;
obtaining, by the processor, a third selection from the set of inputs by the second user; and
causing, by the processor, transmission of a second audio signal to the speaker in response to the third selection, wherein the speaker is further configured to output a second audio that corresponds to the third selection
obtaining, by the processor, a plurality of threshold submission goals for the first user to communicate with the second user;
iteratively obtaining, by the processor, at least one additional submission from the first user;
determining, by the processor, a count of the first submission and the at least one additional submission;
determining, by the processor, whether a threshold submission goal, from the plurality of threshold submission goals, is met based on the count; determining, by the processor, a reward for the first user associated with the threshold submission goal based on a determination that the threshold submission goal is met; and
displaying, by the processor, the reward on the user interface.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “speaker”, “user interface” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses communication between two individuals that do not share the same language using icons to create meaningful sentences and determining reward based on the individual’s action
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – ““processor”, “speaker”.
The ““processor”, “speaker” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 25-27). Alternatively, the current limitation can also be interpreted as a limitation that merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing devices).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For example, claims 2, 4-5 are directed to the type of primary graphics and other graphical interface that is presented to the users. This limitation can be interpreted as a further limitation of an abstract idea that fails to add inventive concept to the abstract idea. Claim 3 is directed to the transmission of the primary and secondary audio signal. This limitation can be interpreted as a further limitation of an abstract idea that fails to add inventive concept to the abstract idea. Similarly claims 6-8 also fails since it is directed to further narrowing of an abstract idea that fails to add inventive concept to the abstract idea. Claims 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to the same subject matter that was presented in claims 2-8 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the current amendment is directed toward a user interface, screen transition, machine controller interaction that coordinates change of turn should not be classified as an abstract idea. The applicant further argued that the “focus of the claim in on improving the process of two-way communication via a computing device” (see applicant’s argument on page 12 first two paragraphs). The examiner respectfully disagrees. An evaluation of the improvement of requires that the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). In this particular case, the specification is silent on the evidence that the claimed limitation is directed to the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field. Instead, the specification shows that the claimed limitation is directed improve “reciprocal communication between the parent and the child” (see paragraph 5, 19 and 28 e.g.: “the reciprocal communication system 106 may encourage the first user 102 to engage in lengthier reciprocal communication with the second user 104 and may thus help in faster child development”). The examiner notes that this type of improvement is not yet contemplated in the MPEP or examples given by the court (see MPEP 2106.5(a) for examples from the court that shows either an improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technical field). Accordingly, the rejection on claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C 101 shall be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715