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 to 20 (independent Claims 1, 9, and 17, and their dependent claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to method, a system, and a computer-readable medium, and so are statutory classes under 101 (step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis, 2019 PEG guidance). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons. Independent Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not. The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claims and fail 101 for similar reasons.
A computer-implemented method of an olfaction training program, comprising: (processing data according to the rules of a game)
receiving from a client device of an user, visual data indicating a plurality of objects in the vicinity of the client device and aroma data indicating the aroma of each of the plurality of objects; (accepting input from a user, processing data according to the rules of a game)
transmitting to the client device, instructions to present a first set of visual indicators to the user based on the visual data and the aroma data; (processing data according to the rules of a game, displaying the result of the processing of the game data to the user)
receiving from the client device, a user response that was provided by the user in response to the presentation of the first set of visual indicators; (accepting input from a user, processing data according to the rules of a game)
storing data in a database wherein the data includes the user response, the first set of visual indicators of the plurality of objects and the aroma data; (processing data according to the rules of a game)
generating a data model using the data stored in the database wherein the data model is configured to generate as output, a second set of visual indicators for presentation to the user of the client device; (processing data according to the rules of a game)
transmitting, to the client device, the second set of visual indicators for presentation to the user of the client device. (accepting input from a user, processing data according to the rules of a game)
The claims do not cite a law of nature or a natural phenomenon. The claims do not cite mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. The claims do not cite mental processes performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The claims do cite a method, a system, and a computer-readable medium for organizing a human activity (yes, step 2A, prong 1, of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis, 2019 PEG guidance). Organizing a human activity is a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea. The human activity is as follows: the fourth clause of Claim 1 receives a user response from a client device, the fifth clause of Claim 1 stores the user response in a database, the sixth clause of Claim 1 generates a data model based on the data stored in the database, and the seventh clause of Claim 1 transmits a second set of visual indicators to the user’s client device. The user’s input is clearly a mode of human activity.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis, 2019 PEG guidance, the question is whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner believes the answer to this question is no for the following reasons. The claims do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo. The claims do not apply a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition as discussed in the Vanda memo.
The relevant indications of integration into a practical application would be improvement in the functioning of a computer, any technology, or any technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(c)); or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). The examiner does not believe that any of these indications of a practical application are present in these claims.
The first clause of Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method of an olfaction training program; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The second clause of Claim 2 cites receiving visual data and aroma data from a user device; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The third clause of Claim 1 cites transmitting to the client device visual indicators based on the visual data and the aroma data; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The fourth clause of Claim 1 cites receiving from the client device a user response in response to the visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The fifth clause of Claim 1 cites storing in a database data including the user response, and the first visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The sixth clause of Claim 1 cites generating a data model based on the information in the database and generating a second set of visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The last clause of Claim 1 cites transmitting the second set of visual indicators to the client device; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The answer to the question at step 2A, prong 2, is no because the claim does not cite any additional elements that reduce the claim to a practical application.
Regarding step 2B of the 101 analysis, the considerations somewhat similar but different to the consideration in step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.05(II)). The first clause of Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method of an olfaction training program; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The second clause of Claim 2 cites receiving visual data and aroma data from a user device; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The third clause of Claim 1 cites transmitting to the client device visual indicators based on the visual data and the aroma data; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The fourth clause of Claim 1 cites receiving from the client device a user response in response to the visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The fifth clause of Claim 1 cites storing in a database data including the user response, and the first visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The sixth clause of Claim 1 cites generating a data model based on the information in the database and generating a second set of visual indicators; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices). The last clause of Claim 1 cites transmitting the second set of visual indicators to the client device; this clause does not cite any improvement to the function of a computing device or other technology, or tie the claimed step to a particular machine (particular input, computing, processing, memory, or output devices).
None of these claim limitations cites any improvement in a computer or other technology, or cites any particular input, output, processing, or memory devices or structures for carrying out the claimed steps. The only hardware limitation in addition to the “abstract idea” is the client device. A computer is implied in the preamble, and input and output devices are implied throughout the claim’s clauses. The examiner finds that there are no improvements to a computer or to any particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(I),(II)), or that the claims are applied with a particular machine (2106.05(b)), or that the claims are drawn to a particular transformation (2106.05(c)). Inputs and outputs as cited in the claims are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2106.05(d)). The examiner thus finds that the claims fail step 2B of the 2019 PEG 101 analysis and that the answer to the question at this step is no. The flowcharts followed by the examiner are at MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A). The USPTO 2019 PEG guidance can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf. The examiner believes that the AR headsets of Figs. 1 and 3 and their written descriptions are the most likely avenue for claim limitations to overcome the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
Form Paragraph ¶ 13.04: Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1 to 20 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below: the application is reopened in light of the latest 101 guidance.
The examiner apologizes to the applicants for any inconvenience (MPEP 1308.03).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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.
/M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights