DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response on 11/25/2026 has been received and fully considered. In the response, claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0023157 to Lewis.
With regard to claim 1, Lewis discloses a computer-implemented method for improving mental health of a subject (e.g., see paragraph 3, that discusses “dynamically providing digital content to a user for treatment of a mental health condition) comprising: a) obtaining, using a processor (e.g., see also paragraph 34 for discussion of a computer-based processor, processor 150), a mental health treatment protocol based on an initial assessment of the subject (e.g., see Fig. 6, step 610 and paragraph 80 for the discussion of an introduction to a treatment program); b) generating, using the processor, an immersive experience for the subject to implement the mental health treatment protocol and to facilitate the subject to enter an adaptive mode (e.g., see at least paragraphs 20, 21, 23 and 27 that discusses the presentation to a user of an immersive environment, which could be AM, VR, MR, XR, etc.); c) generating, using the processor (e.g., processor 150), a challenge activity for the subject in the immersive experience and assessing the subject's success with the challenge activity associated with the immersive experience (e.g., see at least Fig. 6, psycho-education segment 630; see discussion of psycho-education segments in paragraphs 79 and 80), wherein the challenge activity is configured to facilitate the adaptive mode in the subject, and wherein the adaptive mode is characterized by at least one of motivation, optimism, and enjoyment (e.g., see at least paragraph 63 that discusses determining if the user “appears to be happy” and paragraph 79 that determines if a user provides “a positive or happy statement” as detected by “the state detection system 160”; it is the Examiner’s position that a detection a user being “happy” is equivalent to “optimism” and “enjoyment” because www.theasaurus.com states that “joy” and “optimism” are “Strongest matches” as synonyms for “happiness”; see screenshot below);
PNG
media_image1.png
933
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and d) updating, using the processor, the mental health treatment protocol based upon the success of the subject in the immersive experience (e.g., see at least paragraph 98 that discusses “as the user interacts with the modified content, such that the content can be continuously updated in near real time”);
[claim 2] wherein the immersive experience is at least one of a virtual reality, an augmented reality, a synthetic environment, or a mixed reality (e.g., see at least paragraphs 23 and 27 that discusses that the system can be VR, AR, or MR, among others);
[claim 3] wherein the immersive experience is an augmented reality and wherein the augmented reality includes real artifacts overlaid with synthetic artifacts generated for the augmented reality (e.g., see at least paragraphs 23 and 27 that discusses the use of augmented reality, that by definition blends the real world with a virtual world);
[claim 5] wherein the challenge activity is configured to improve mental health of the subject (e.g., see at least paragraph 25, “can be especially effective in improving treatment outcomes for mental heal conditions”);
[claim 6] wherein assessing the subject's success with the challenge activity includes determining at least one of a duration of the challenge activity (e.g., see at least paragraph 75 that discusses pre-defined period of time for the activity), a difficulty of completing the challenge activity, retained learning from the challenge activity, or subject fatigue;
[claim 7] wherein the treatment protocol includes a plurality of treatment episodes, each of which include a plurality of generated immersive experiences (e.g., see at least paragraph 98 for updating/modifying treatment over various segments, wherein segments are equivalent to episodes);
[claim 8] wherein assessing the subject's success with the challenge activity is performed after each immersive experience, and subsequent immersive experiences are adjusted based upon a preceding assessment of the subject's success with the challenge activity (e.g., see at least paragraph 98 for updating/modifying treatment over various segments);
[claim 9] wherein assessing the subject's success with the challenge activity includes using at least one of a microphone, a video camera, and a biometric sensor to acquire data of the performance of the subject (e.g., see at least paragraph 35 for discussion of sensors including biometric, cameras, and microphones); and
[claim 10] wherein the initial assessment includes an assessment of at least one of avolition (e.g., see at least paragraph 20 that discusses various mental health conditions, including depression, that often is associated with avoiding or not being interested in activities), asociality, or anhedonia in the subject.
Claims 12-14 and 16-21 are similar in scope to claims 1-3 and 5-10. Therefore claims 12-14 are anticipated by Lewis based on the same analysis set for above for claims 1-3 and 5-10.
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.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0351289 to Fung.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, Lewis discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding wherein the challenge activity includes a puzzle and wherein the puzzle is configured to facilitate the subject to enter the adaptive mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Fung teaches the challenge activity includes a puzzle and wherein the puzzle is configured to facilitate the subject to enter the adaptive mode (e.g., see at least paragraphs 41 and 48 for discussion of “2D rendered puzzles” and “brain function stimulating puzzle solving”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Lewis with a puzzle activity as taught by Fung in order to apply a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, using puzzles is as challenge activity to test alertness and effort of the user.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0216989 to Cuthbert.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, Lewis discloses all of the recited features but is silent regarding the use of a scoreboard.
In the same field of endeavor, Cuthbert teaches the use of a scoreboard (e.g., see at least at least paragraph 134 for discussion of a scoreboard).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Lewis with a scoreboard as taught by Cuthbert in order to apply a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In this case, using a scoreboard helps motivate the generation of positive outcomes by the user and allows observers to better understand user performances on the challenge activities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, first and second full paragraphs, Applicant argues that Lewis does not disclose “the immersive experience is implemented to facilitate the subject to enter an adaptive mode”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least paragraphs 63 and 79, Lewis discloses determining if a user is “happy” following immersion. A determination that the subject is “happy” following an immersion that is meant to help treat phobias, PTSD, anxiety, etc. (see, paragraph 80), would certainly be a positive adaptation for the subject.
On page 7, third full paragraph, Applicant argues that Lewis does not disclose an adaptive mode that is characterized as at least one of motivation, optimism, and enjoyment. As discussed above, Lewis discloses determining if the user “appears to be happy” (e.g., see at least paragraph 63) and determining if a user provides “a positive or happy statement” as detected by “the state detection system 160” (e.g., see at least paragraph 79). It is the Examiner’s position that a detection of a user being “happy” is equivalent to “optimism” and “enjoyment” because www.theasaurus.com states that “joy” and “optimism” are “Strongest matches” as synonyms for “happiness” (see screenshot provided above).
On page 7, final paragraph and continued through the second full paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues that Lewis’ challenge activities are different from those of the current application, wherein “Lewis does not describe an active task-based challenge”. As an initial matter, the claims do not appear to recite “an active task-based challenge”, but merely a “challenge activity”. Nevertheless, Lewis describes providing the user with immersion sessions that equate to a “challenge activity” such as those described in Fig. 6 and the treatment programs described in paragraph 80 that include video clips.
On page 8, final paragraph, Applicant argues that Fung fails to teach a puzzle that facilitates the subject to enter an adaptive mode. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The very nature of a puzzle can generate various adaptive modes including enjoyment, frustration, etc. (e.g., see Fung at paragraph 80 for discussion of emotions associated with solving a puzzle). When a puzzle is solved, it often invokes enjoyment and pride. When is puzzle is not solved, it often invokes frustration and disappointment. Additionally, at asserted above, Lewis specifically discusses the adapted mode of happiness during immersion sessions (e.g., see at least paragraphs 63 and 79).
On page 9, first full paragraph, Applicant argues that Lewis fails to disclose assessing the subject’s success with a challenge activity based on the time it took to complete the challenge. As initial matter, the claims do not recite “the time it took the complete the challenge”, but merely “a duration of the challenge activity”. In paragraph 75, Lewis discloses that the subject is monitored during a period of time and the state detection system 160 will monitor the user to determine the next environment to present to the user. Therefore, Lewis discloses assessing a subject’s success based on a duration of the challenge activity since a time period is set.
For at least the above reasons, claims 1-22 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
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.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715