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 claims filed on 31 January 2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 were amended. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-7 are considered to be free of prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art: The closest prior art is understood to be the prior art of record. Elor discloses a system for generating an electronic character, having that character copy some actions performed by a translucent character, and all this being used in a therapy setting. Jeong teaches a system that can display a character with facial features, icons, and modifiable emotions. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a combination which results in the specific combination of elements described in the language of the claims, such as the character and light being remaining separate and the actions not being performed by a human in a non-electronic environment. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are considered to be free of prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 6-7 recite that the electronic character and the electronic light being “remain separated.” There is no support for this in the specification. Further, claims 1 and 6-7 recite that “the electronic light being is not generated based on any human activity occurring in a non-electronic environment.” This is a negative limitation that is also not supported by the specification. Dependent claims 2-5 inherit this deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 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 1 (and similar claims 6-7) recites the limitation "the particularly electronically generated emotional" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “the particularly electronically generated emotion.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-5 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "an electronic light being" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this element will be considered to state “the electronic light being.” 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
receiving … a request to generate an … character;
receiving … [a] communication that includes information about different features of the … character;
generating … [a] character that includes the different features, wherein the different features of the … character include: facial expressions, facial features including a nose, eyes, and a mouth, and a particular … emotion;
displaying the … character;
generating … [a] light being;
displaying ... [the] light being at the same time that [the] character is being displayed, wherein:
[the] character and [the] light being, when displayed, remain separated, the electronic light being does not have any facial expressions or facial features, [the] light being has a level of displayable light that is adjustable, wherein the adjustability of the displayable light is based on the particular … emotion of [the] character, and [the] light being is not generated based on any human activity occurring in a non-electronic environment;
generating … an action by [the] light being;
generating … the same action by [the] character; and,
changing … [the] generated emotion of [the] character based on the action of [the] light being;
receiving … after a time delay, another … communication that is then sent to a therapist.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “providing representative therapy” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Providing representative therapy” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). When considered in light of the specification, this is an example of a therapist providing treatment to a patient using representative gestures and actions.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
a computing device;
the communications are electronic;
another computing device.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These additional element merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use 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 they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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(s), individually and in combination, merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the level of displayable light is of a particular color.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 2 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the another electronic communication is sent via selection of an icon.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes 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)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 3, wherein:
the icon is associated with an electronic emotional wheel.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 4 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 3, wherein:
the icon is associated with a medical facility.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Claims 6-7 are parallel in nature to claim 1. Accordingly claims 6-7 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 January 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the therapy provided by the system is not the same as the therapy provided by a person (see Applicant Remarks page 7-8). This is not persuasive. The claims recite using a computer to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims remain rejected as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments filed 31 January 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baeuerle (U.S. 2018/0261332) teaches and discloses a system for symptom alleviation using virtual avatars.
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 BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684