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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to amendment filed 02/20/2026. Claims 1-15 and 20-22 are amended. Claims 16-19 are cancelled. Claims 23-40 are added. Claims 1-15 and 20-43 are currently pending in the application.
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 17, 20 and dependents thereof 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. In particular, in claim 1, it is unclear whether the two recitations of “an electronic control unit” and “an operation control system” are intended to refer to same or different “electronic control unit”. and “an operation control system” As a result, the metes and bounds of each of claim 1 and dependents thereof cannot be discerned.
For purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 27, 35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 27, the recitation of “wherein the training is used for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments” fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in view of the verbatim recitation of the noted limitation in parent claim 1. See MPEP 608.01(n), III. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In claim 38, the recitation of “wherein the training is used for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments” fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in view of the verbatim recitation of the noted limitation in parent claim 32. See MPEP 608.01(n), III. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In claim 40, the recitation of “configured for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders” fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed in view of the verbatim recitation of the noted limitation in parent claim 1. See MPEP 608.01(n), III. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-15 and 20-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to independent Claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
Step 1: Statutory Category?
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites “A first user interface and a training system for a training of a first user …”. “A first user interface” is a computer program product (i.e., a “manufacture”) and “a training system” is a “machine”. The claim needs to fall within a single category of invention. As a result, the claim is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Step 1: NO).
Because independent claim 1 could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues under that assumption.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional element(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
A first user interface and a training system for a training of a first user which is a patient,
A) the training system comprising;
a) a computer program product comprising program code which, when loaded and executed on an electronic control unit, provides an operation control system,
b) an electronic control unit with a program code, wherein the program code, when executed on the electronic control unit, provides an operation control system,
- wherein the operation control system is configured to control the training of the first user,
- wherein the operation control system comprises a plurality of training functionalities, the training functionalities comprising:
- a data generation functionality configured to produce user capability data, the user capability data being indicative for the capability of the first user in content processing,
- a presentation functionality which is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command depending on the user capability data in order to present a feature via the first user interface used by the first user, the feature being related to the capability of the first user in content processing,
B) the first user interface comprising:
- a presentation area for presenting to the first user critical content, which the first user has problems to comprehend and/or to pronounce, wherein the critical content is presented by pictures and/or symbols,
- a microphone,
- a loudspeaker,
- a display area configured to show the face of a second user which is an interlocutor of the first user,
wherein the interlocutor is a family member, a friend or a therapist of the first user, wherein the first user interface is a graphical user interface, and
wherein the first user interface and the training system are configured for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders.
The Specification states that “a training arrangement and a training are specified” (Spec., ¶ 1), that the “training may be a therapeutic training, e.g. to treat aphasia, or a non-therapeutic training, e.g. to improve skills” and that the “training may be a language training” (Spec., ¶ 126). Humans have long conducted/controlled therapeutic training, non-therapeutic training and language training for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments. Each of such training can generally be accomplished without computers or other external physical tools or devices and is an abstract idea of organizing human activity— i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface” noted above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The body of the claim, the additional limitations noted in bold above, namely the “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. The originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification provides supporting exemplary descriptions of generic computer components: at least ¶ 8: “The electronic control unit preferably comprises a processor or processing engine. The computer program product may be a data carrier, such as a memory stick, a CD (Compact Disc), a magnetic storing hard disk (HD), an SSD (Solid State Device). The data carrier may be non-transitory data carrier. The computer program product may be a data stream (on wire or wirelessly transmitted, e.g. as digital and/or analog signals). The electronic control unit may be part of a notebook, a PC, a tablet, a mobile phone or a smart phone”; ¶ 17: “a user interface may comprise one or more or of all of: a display, e.g. a touch screen, a microphone, a loudspeaker, a tactile or haptic feedback element, a visible or audible alert element, a VR (Virtual Reality)-device, e.g. VR glasses, a AR (Augmented Reality)-device, e.g. AR glasses, a mouse, a keyboard. A user may input information via the user interface, e.g. by speaking into the microphone, by writing on the touch screen, by typing on a keyboard, by clicking a mouse etc”; ¶ 25: “The user interface may comprise a microphone. A user speaks into the user interface, e.g. a microphone, (speech input) and this is transferred into audio user input data, from which the recognition functionality extracts one or more expressions”; ¶ 56: “the operation control system causes the electronic control unit to issue a command, e.g. with help of the presentation functionality, in order to ask the first user to indicate his/her cognitive state”; ¶ 123: “first user interface may be part of a first electronic device, like a PC or tablet or smartphone or a notebook or laptop”; ¶ 124: “second user interface may be part of a second electronic device, like a PC or tablet or smartphone or a notebook or laptop”; ¶ 125: “he first and the second user interface are operatively coupled via a wireless connection. Alternatively, the first and the second user interface may be operatively coupled via a wire connection. The first and the second user interface may be located in different rooms and/or may be spaced from each other. Each of the interfaces may be assigned its own training system. E.g. a first and a second electronic device, like a smartphone or a tablet, may each comprise both, a training system and a user interface. The training systems of the two electronic devices may then be configured to communicate with each other (wireless or via a wire) in order to perform the training”; ¶ 135: “The first user and the second user are preferably not in the same room so that the interaction has to be transmitted via at least one electronic device. For example, each of the users uses a PC or a smart phone or a tablet”; ¶ 145: “The computer program product comprises machine-readable instructions, which, when loaded and executed on a processor or training device or training arrangement, are configured to cause the processor or training device or training arrangement to execute the training specified herein”; ¶¶ 158, 159: “a first user interface 2, for instance a monitor or a touch screen, e.g. in combination with a microphone and a loudspeaker, for visible and/or audible input and output, [0159] a brain stimulation device 4, [0160] a detector 5, 5a or condition monitoring device 5”; ¶ 162: “The training system 100 and the first user interface 2 may be part of an electronic device, like a tablet, a laptop, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal computer, a workstation or some other kind of computing system”; ¶ 166: “an electronic control unit 1, for instance CPU (Central Processing Unit) or MCU (Microcontroller Unit)”; ¶ 169: “The first user interface 2 may be fixedly connected to the training system 100, as in a smartphone, mobile phone, PC (personal computer), work station, tablet, or notebook, or it may be a separate device. If the first user interface 2 is a separate device, there may be a wire connection 112 or a wireless connection between training system 100 and the first user interface 2. Furthermore, a keyboard, a computer mouse or other kinds of input and/or output devices may be part of the first user interface 2, for instance a microphone and a loudspeaker. Alternatively or additionally, earphones and/or a microphone may be comprised by or operatively connectable to the brain stimulation device 4 or the first user interface 2 for speech input and/or output”; ¶ 170: “A first user 2a or a patient 2a, e.g. suffering from e.g. aphasia or a cognitive disorder, wears the brain stimulation device 4 on his/her head to enable electrical stimulation of the brain 2b. The brain stimulation device 4 may be operatively connectable or connected to the training system 100, e.g. by a wired or by wireless connection 124. Details of the brain stimulation device 4 are shown in FIG. 12 …”; ¶ 234: “When initiated, the first user 2a may have the brain stimulation device 4 mounted to his head …”; ¶¶ 297-301: “FIG. 12 illustrates parts of the brain stimulation device 4. The brain stimulation device 4 may comprise: communication interface 402, a control unit 404, for instance an MCU (Microcontroller Unit) or a CPU (Control Processing Unit), at least one electrode 406 or at least two electrodes 406, preferably three or more electrodes, where, preferably, at least one of the electrodes 406 is configured to be arranged on the head of the first user 2a and the other electrode may be placed for instance on an appropriate location of the body of the first user 2a, for instance on his or her shoulder, and an electrical power supply unit 408, for instance a battery or an accumulator”; ¶¶ 306-330: “1 control unit; 2 first interface; 2a first user; 2b brain of first user; 3 second interface; 3a second user; 4 brain stimulation device; 5 detector/condition monitoring device; 5a detector/condition monitoring device; 21 quick control button; 22 first user dictionary; 23 display area; 24 loudspeaker; 25 microphone; 27 display area and input field; 28 display; 31 display area; 32 content cloud; 33 content cloud; 34 loudspeaker; 35 microphone; 36 alert; 37 display area and input field; 38 display; 91 . . . 97 connections”. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the recited “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface”. The lack of details about the recited additional elements indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing generic computer-implemented steps. The claimed limitations to/for “produce user capability data”, “present a feature”, “presenting … critical content”, “show the face of a second user” and “treating speech disabilities and language disabilities …” as recited do not purport to improve the functioning any of the “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface”, do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, the claim as a whole fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions performed by the computer system at each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step performed in the claim does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the Specification, as noted above (¶¶ 8, 17, 25, 56, 123, 124, 125, 135, 145, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 170, 234, 297-301, 306-330) describes the “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of “first user interface”, “electronic control unit”, “operation control system”, “microphone”, “loudspeaker” and “graphical user interface” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, each of the recited data presentation steps (i.e., “present a feature”, “presenting … critical content”, “show the face of a second user”) is nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is not distinguished from the generic, conventional data presentation with a computer. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (claims to gathering, analyzing, and displaying data in real time using conventional, generic technology do not have an inventive concept). Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites “a training system”, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claim recites “a training system for a training of a first user comprising a) a computer program product comprising program code which, when loaded and executed on an electronic control unit, provides an operation control system, and/or b) an electronic control unit with a program code, wherein the program code, when executed on the electronic control unit”, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The electronic control unit, operation control system, and user interface additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements (see published Specification ¶¶ 8, 17, 56, 123, 124, 125, 135, 145, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 170, 234, 297-301, 306-330) for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1. Additionally, for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, independent claim 1, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
In regard to independent Claim 12:
Independent claim 12 recites “a training arrangement comprising: - the first user interface and the training system according to claim 1, and - a second user interface configured to receive an input of the second user and/or to present a feature to the second user”, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The “first user interface” and “second user interface” additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing elements (see published Specification ¶¶ 8, 17, 56, 123, 124, 125, 135, 145, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 170, 234, 297-301, 306-330) for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1. Additionally, for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, independent claim 12, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
In regard to independent Claim 14:
Independent claim 14 recites “a method for training of a first user using the first user interface and the training system according to claim 1”, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The “first user interface” and “second user interface” additional elements are generic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing element (see published Specification ¶¶ 8, 17, 56, 123, 124, 125, 135, 145, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 170, 234, 297-301, 306-330) for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1. Additionally, for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, independent claim 14, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-11, 13, 15, 21- 31 and 33-40 include all the limitations of respective independent claims 1, 12, 14, and 20 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for respective claims 2-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-22. Any additional claim element is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner (i.e., detector (claim 7 and 14); electrical brain stimulation device (claim 9), see published Specification ¶¶ 45, 306-330). The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, interface, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional components but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21-22 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. While dependent claims 22-11, 13, 15, 21- 31 and 33-40 may have a narrower scope than the representative claims, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13, 15, 21- 31 and 33-40 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 10-15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
HARRIS et al. (US 20190385471 A1) (HARRIS) in view of Parikh (US 20110229862 A1).
Re claims 1-4, 12-14 and 20-22:
[Claims 1-4] HARRIS teaches or at least suggests a first user interface and a training system for a training of a first user which is a patient, A) the training system comprising; a) a computer program product comprising program code which, when loaded and executed on an electronic control unit, provides an operation control system, b) an electronic control unit with a program code, wherein the program code, when executed on the electronic control unit, provides an operation control system, - wherein the operation control system is configured to control the training of the first user, - wherein the operation control system comprises a plurality of training functionalities (at least ¶¶ 1, 4: FIG. 1 illustrates a system level block diagram for an assessment-based measurable progress learning system), the training functionalities comprising: a data generation functionality configured to produce user capability data, the user capability data being indicative for the capability of the first user in content processing, a presentation functionality which is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command depending on the user capability data in order to present a feature via the first user interface used by the first user, the feature being related to the capability of the first user in content processing (at least assessment-based measurable progress throughout reference, i.e., ¶ 52: As each user finishes each learning unit, learning objective, and/or course materials, the progression of each user may be measured, the progress assessment being a measurement of mastery of specific learning objectives (e.g., for a specific unit)… the system may generate, or one or more of the users described above, may identify remedial personalized content for users, which may be personalized at the level that two different learners in two different classes may have completely different course materials).
HARRIS appears to be silent on but Parikh teaches or at least suggests B) the first user interface comprising: - a presentation area for presenting to the first user critical content, which the first user has problems to comprehend and/or to pronounce, wherein the critical content is presented by pictures and/or symbols, - a microphone, - a loudspeaker, - a display area configured to show the face of a second user which is an interlocutor of the first user, wherein the interlocutor is a family member, a friend or a therapist of the first user, wherein the first user interface is a graphical user interface, and wherein the first user interface and the training system are configured for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders (at least ¶ 2: education of human subjects, and more specifically to a computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication; ¶ 3: Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior; ¶ 20: a program which disables difficulty in dealing with the social world because it is always changing unpredictably and is different every time for kids with autism, wherein the program would deliver combination of 3D/2D content dynamically based on the student's skill level, area of interest and mental age of the subject and adjust the type of the delivered content material based on the input received from the subject and/or subject's behaviors and body movements; ¶ 21: system, apparatus and method for training individuals with disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior; ¶ 24: provide computer programs for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication; ¶ 25: the programs deliver animated content to the subject and varies the size, clarity, colors, background images, animated characters, sound with animation, method of instructions, so they would be more easily distinguished by the subject, and thereby gradually improves the subject's neurological processing and memory of the elements through repetitive stimulation; FIG. 14, 18B and associated text; ¶ 121: The speakers and the headphones provide auditory prompting and feedback to the subject during execution of the computer program). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Parikh’s computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication features and modified HARRIS as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests ([Claim 2]) wherein the training functionalities comprise a recognition functionality which is configured to recognize in real time a critical content depending on user input data provided with help of the first user interface or of a second user interface used by the second user and being indicative for an input of the first user or of the second user, wherein the critical content is a content the first user has problems to process, - the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command depending on the recognized critical content in order to present an assist feature via the first user interface, the assist feature being configured to assist the first user in processing the critical content (at least HARRIS: ¶ 58: Some curriculum content or other learning materials may be designated within the disclosed system as core curriculum content that must be learned and completed by all learners to achieve the desired GSE score, while other learning materials may be designated as supplemental or remedial curriculum content (critical contents), which are not required for all learners, but may be helpful to learners requiring additional learning or practice in order to complete the learning modules associated with the desired GSE score), ([Claim 3]) wherein the recognition functionality is configured to recognize the critical content depending on user input data provided with help of the second user interface and being indicative for an input of the second user, ([Claim 4]) wherein the user capability data are indicative for one or more critical contents known to make problems to the first user to process, the recognition functionality is configured to recognize the critical content depending on the user input data and the user capability data (at least HARRIS: ¶ 62: if the analysis of the instructor's assessment input shows a percentage of correct assessment input below the defined threshold for the one or more instructor skills, qualifications, certifications, etc., the disclosed system may identify the assessment skills and/or topics for which the instructor scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer), and identify and access one or more stored training or other supplemental resource materials (critical contents), identified within the system for improving the identified skills or topics; ¶¶ 65, 144: identify specific areas, categories, and/or learning objectives for which the learner scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer for the associated assessment materials), and generate a learner curriculum comprising core curriculum content including practice learning modules (e.g., practice exercises, reading comprehension assignments, speaking interaction practice, videos, virtual reality (VR) interactions, quizzes/tests, etc.) (critical contents) identified within the system as being associated with, and for improving, the identified skills or topics, which must be completed in the designated time frame to achieve the desired GSE score).
[Claims 12-13] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests a training arrangement comprising: the training system according to claim 1, a first user interface configured to receive an input of a first user and/or to present a feature to the first user, a second user interface configured to receive an input of a second user and/or to present a feature to the second user ([Claim 13]), wherein the first and the second user interfaces are operatively coupled via a wireless connection or a wire connection (at least HARRIS: FIG. 8, 12A-12G: example GUI for a learner; FIG. 6, 11A-11F and 13A-14B: example GUI for an instructor; ¶ 49: … an online learning community delivering and developing resources for the learners, the instructors, and the administrators …; ¶ 52: As each user finishes each learning unit, learning objective, and/or course materials, the progression of each user may be measured, the progress assessment being a measurement of mastery of specific learning objectives (e.g., for a specific unit)… the system may generate, or one or more of the users described above, may identify remedial personalized content for users, which may be personalized at the level that two different learners in two different classes may have completely different course materials; ¶ 79: … network 120 may be a local area network (LAN; e.g., Ethernet, Token-Ring, etc.), a wide-area network (e.g., the Internet), an infrared or wireless network).
[Claim 14] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests a method for training of a first user, the method comprising the steps of: generating a user capability data being indicative for the capability of the first user in content processing, issuing a presentation command depending on the user capability data in order to present a feature via a user interface, the feature being related to the capability of the first user in content processing (at least HARRIS: assessment-based measurable progress throughout reference, i.e., ¶ 52: As each user finishes each learning unit, learning objective, and/or course materials, the progression of each user may be measured, the progress assessment being a measurement of mastery of specific learning objectives (e.g., for a specific unit)… the system may generate, or one or more of the users described above, may identify remedial personalized content for users, which may be personalized at the level that two different learners in two different classes may have completely different course materials).
[Claims 17-19] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests a training system for a training of a first user comprising a) a computer program product comprising program code which, when loaded and executed on an electronic control unit, provides an operation control system, and/or b) an electronic control unit with a program code, wherein the program code, when executed on the electronic control unit provides an operation control system, wherein the operation control system is configured to control the training of the first user (at least HARRIS: ¶¶ 1, 4: FIG. 1 illustrates a system level block diagram for an assessment-based measurable progress learning system), wherein the training comprises a step in which a social interaction module is executed in which the first user interacts with a second user (at least ¶ 101: communications subsystem 232 may be configured to receive data feeds in real-time from users of social networks and/or other communication services, web feeds such as Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds, and/or real-time updates from one or more third party information sources (e.g., data aggregators); ¶ 107: a means of course delivery (e.g., individual independent learning activities, peer-to-peer independent learning games, and/or teacher facilitated group learning); ¶ 173: If one student knows a lot of English, that learner may teach their peers, which would improve the learner's skill, and focus on and develop the skills of other learners), wherein the operation control system comprises a plurality of training functionalities, the training functionalities comprising: a recognition functionality which is configured to recognize a critical content depending on user input data provided with help of a user interface and being indicative for an input of either the first user or the second user, wherein the critical content is a content the first user has problems to process, a presentation functionality which is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command depending on the recognized critical content in order to present an assist feature via a user interface, the assist feature being configured to assist the first user in processing the critical content, ([Claim 18]) wherein the assist feature is a synonym or and/or a reformulation and/or a graphical depiction of the critical content, ([Claim 19]) wherein the assist feature is a feature indicating to the second user that the first user has problems to process the recognized critical content (at least ¶ 44: FIG. 17A-17I depicts user interfaces enabling an instructor to review learner performance and selectively assign remediation curriculum activities and enhancement curriculum activities to learners based upon performance on an initial curriculum activity; ¶¶ 65, 144: identify specific areas, categories, and/or learning objectives for which the learner scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer for the associated assessment materials), and generate a learner curriculum comprising core curriculum content including practice learning modules (e.g., practice exercises, reading comprehension assignments, speaking interaction practice, videos, virtual reality (VR) interactions, quizzes/tests, etc.) (critical contents) identified within the system as being associated with, and for improving, the identified skills or topics, which must be completed in the designated time frame to achieve the desired GSE score).
[Claims 20-22] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests The first user interface and the training system for a training of a first user according to claim 1, comprising a social interaction module, - wherein the training comprises a step in which the social interaction module is executed such that the first user interacts with the second user via the first user interface (at least HARRIS: ¶¶ 1, 4: FIG. 1 illustrates a system level block diagram for an assessment-based measurable progress learning system; Parikh: ¶ 2: education of human subjects, and more specifically to a computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication; ¶ 70: improving a Subject's cognitive, language and social skills using a series of audio-visual content that are modified by computer processing), wherein the interactions are transmitted via at least one electronic device between the first and the second user (at least HARRIS: ¶ 101: communications subsystem 232 may be configured to receive data feeds in real-time from users of social networks and/or other communication services, web feeds such as Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds, and/or real-time updates from one or more third party information sources (e.g., data aggregators)), wherein the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command in order to present a list of noncritical contents via a second user interface for the second user to indicate to the second user contents the first user is able to process, ([Claim 21]) wherein the noncritical content is content that the first user has trained prior to performing the social interaction module (at least ¶ 107: a means of course delivery (e.g., individual independent learning activities, peer-to-peer independent learning games, and/or teacher facilitated group learning); ¶ 173: If one student knows a lot of English, that learner may teach their peers, which would improve the learner's skill, and focus on and develop the skills of other learners), ([Claim 22]) wherein the training functionalities comprise a recognition functionality which is configured to extract information out of user input data provided with help of a user interface and being indicative for an input of a user, wherein the information is indicative for the topic of the user input, the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command depending on the topic of the user input in order to present an noncritical content related to the topic via the second user interface (at least HARRIS: FIG. 6: Instructor Control Panel … Recommended Supplements; ¶ 44: FIG. 17A-17I depicts user interfaces enabling an instructor to review learner performance and selectively assign remediation curriculum activities (critical contents) and enhancement curriculum activities (noncritical contents) to learners based upon performance on an initial curriculum activity; ¶ 137: … server 112 may identify the assessment skills and/or topics for which the instructor scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer), and identify and access one or more stored training or other supplemental resource materials 315 identified within the system for improving the identified skills or topics. These training materials may be stored as software modules and/or data records within database 110; ¶ 157: … If the analysis shows that the learner performed below the threshold 350, server 112 may update the control panel on the learner's GUI 360 providing access to the supplemental or remedial resources 315 …; ¶ 182: … parent may access lists of assignments available, as seen in FIG. 15C, available from a menu view in FIG. 15B; Parikh: ¶ 70: … delivery of the series of audio-visual content for the trial and capture responses from the users).
Re claims 5 and 23:
[Claims 5 and 23] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a first presentation command in order to present a list of critical contents via a user interface to indicate contents the first user has problems to process, the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a second presentation command in order to present a list of noncritical contents via a user interface to indicate contents the first user is able to process, the first presentation command and/or the second presentation command are configured to present the list of critical contents via a user interface for a second user (at least HARRIS: FIG. 6: Instructor Control Panel … Recommended Supplements; ¶ 44: FIG. 17A-17I depicts user interfaces enabling an instructor to review learner performance and selectively assign remediation curriculum activities (critical contents) and enhancement curriculum activities (noncritical contents) to learners based upon performance on an initial curriculum activity; ¶ 137: … server 112 may identify the assessment skills and/or topics for which the instructor scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer), and identify and access one or more stored training or other supplemental resource materials 315 identified within the system for improving the identified skills or topics. These training materials may be stored as software modules and/or data records within database 110; ¶ 157: … If the analysis shows that the learner performed below the threshold 350, server 112 may update the control panel on the learner's GUI 360 providing access to the supplemental or remedial resources 315 …; ¶ 182: … parent may access lists of assignments available, as seen in FIG. 15C, available from a menu view in FIG. 15B), wherein the list comprises synonyms or and/or a reformulations and/or a graphical depictions of the critical content (at least Parikh: abstract: progress module which monitors a user's performance on any of learn, review and test modules and changes the future lessons based on the monitored performance; ¶ 98: Based on the historical attention span of the object, before the expiration of the attention span the method changes the content type delivered to the Subject from educational content to the entertaining content of the Subject's interest; ¶ 144: FIG. 18-B illustrates an example of an activity where the image in the activity is replaced by the system with the image or photo of the computer generated character or actual picture of the person based on the Subject's likings)..
Re claim 6:
[Claim 6] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command in order to present a cognitive task via a user interface, the cognitive task being a task to be performed by the first user (at least HARRIS: ¶ 75: GSE learning objectives relate to functional activities (i.e., specific language tasks) in addition to competencies …; ¶ 110: a personalized course profile defining a series of learning objectives, skills and/or tasks that the employees or candidates must master to qualify for a job matching a job description for the employee or candidate's defined career goal; ¶¶ 145, 146: Each personalized course profile may include one or more learning objectives teaching the user one or more skills which the user must master to fulfill one or more tasks required in order to be proficient in the job description the user has identified to achieve their professional goals … ).
Re claim 10:
[Claim 10] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the training functionalities comprise an environment functionality which is configured to receive environment user input data indicative for a user selected virtual environment at which the first user performs the training, the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command in order to present an environment feature on a user interface, the environment feature being indicative for the user selected virtual environment (at least HARRIS: ¶ 57: a plurality of curriculum content including … virtual reality interaction; ¶ 80: Users operating client devices 106 may in turn utilize one or more client applications (e.g., virtual client applications) to interact with server 102 to utilize the services provided by these components; ¶ 118: Server 112 and/or database 110 may further receive input from the system administrator or other user, and store the input as a plurality of curriculum content 305 including: … virtual reality interaction); ¶ 144: generate a personalized learner curriculum 375 comprising … virtual reality (VR) interactions … for improving, the identified skills or topics, which must be completed in the designated time frame to achieve the desired GSE score; ¶ 149: personalized curriculum 375 may include … virtual reality interaction; ¶ 151: VR interaction within a selected experience; ¶ 181: In the example instructor GUI seen in FIG. 14A, the instructor may select from available remedial content, for example, the reading remedial content available on FIG. 14A. As seen in FIG. 14B, the instructor may then define the remedial assignment (or any assignment), and choose the learners that need the remedial content; ¶ 182: parent may access lists of assignments available, as seen in FIG. 15C, available from a menu view in FIG. 15B).
Re claim 11:
[Claim 11] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the data generation functionality is configured to produce the user capability data depending on an input provided with help of a user interface and performed by a user (at least HARRIS: ¶ 62: identify the assessment skills and/or topics for which the instructor scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer …; ¶¶ 65, 144: identify specific areas, categories, and/or learning objectives for which the learner scored low (e.g., input an incorrect answer for the associated assessment materials), and generate a learner curriculum comprising core curriculum content including practice learning modules (e.g., practice exercises, reading comprehension assignments, speaking interaction practice, videos, virtual reality (VR) interactions, quizzes/tests, etc.) (critical contents) identified within the system as being associated with, and for improving, the identified skills or topics, which must be completed in the designated time frame to achieve the desired GSE score; ¶ 123: one or more progress tracking modules measure correct and incorrect intermittent input in response to one or more GSE based assessment tools).
Re claim 15:
[Claim 15] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests executing an individualized training module, in which a presentation command is issued in order to present a task to be performed by the first user via a user interface, task performance data are determined which are indicative for the performance of the first user in solving the task, and/or executing a social interaction module, in which the first user and a second user interact with each other, a content is recognized depending on user input data provided with help of a user interface and being indicative for an input of one of the users, a presentation command is issued depending on the recognized content in order to present a feature via a user interface, the feature being configured to influence the interaction (at least HARRIS: ¶ 101: communications subsystem 232 may be configured to receive data feeds in real-time from users of social networks and/or other communication services, web feeds such as Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds, and/or real-time updates from one or more third party information sources (e.g., data aggregators); ¶ 107: a means of course delivery (e.g., individual independent learning activities, peer-to-peer independent learning games, and/or teacher facilitated group learning); ¶ 173: If one student knows a lot of English, that learner may teach their peers, which would improve the learner's skill, and focus on and develop the skills of other learners).
Re claim 23:
[Claim 23] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the assist feature is a synonym or and/or a reformulation and/or a graphical depiction of the critical content (at least Parikh: abstract: progress module which monitors a user's performance on any of learn, review and test modules and changes the future lessons based on the monitored performance; ¶ 98: Based on the historical attention span of the object, before the expiration of the attention span the method changes the content type delivered to the Subject from educational content to the entertaining content of the Subject's interest; ¶ 144: FIG. 18-B illustrates an example of an activity where the image in the activity is replaced by the system with the image or photo of the computer generated character or actual picture of the person based on the Subject's likings).
Re claim 25:
[Claim 25] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the trainings system is configured to change the critical content depending on a virtual environment (at least Parikh: ¶ 98: Based on the historical attention span of the object, before the expiration of the attention span the method changes the content type delivered to the Subject from educational content to the entertaining content of the Subject's interest; ¶ 144: FIG. 18-B illustrates an example of an activity where the image in the activity is replaced by the system with the image or photo of the computer generated character or actual picture of the person based on the Subject's likings).
Re claim 26:
[Claim 26] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on wherein the training is used for treating speech and language disabilities related to aphasia.
treating speech and language disabilities related to aphasia. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of treating speech and language disabilities related to aphasia were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified HARRIS in view of Parikh as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 27:
[Claim 27] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the training is used for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments (at least Parikh: ¶ 98: Based on the historical attention span of the object, before the expiration of the attention span the method changes the content type delivered to the Subject from educational content to the entertaining content of the Subject's interest; ¶ 144: FIG. 18-B illustrates an example of an activity where the image in the activity is replaced by the system with the image or photo of the computer generated character or actual picture of the person based on the Subject's likings).
Re claim 28:
[Claim 28] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the first user interface comprises at least one quick control button, wherein each control button is configured to be used to provide a specific information, request or answer to the interlocutor (at least Parikh: ¶ 121: The speakers and the headphones provide auditory prompting and feedback to the subject during execution of the computer program; ¶ 136: The Subject has to click or touch on the `Play` button to start the activity; ¶ 143: The replay button starts the activity all over again. The training button replays the training part once again). Parikh’s prompting being preferably at least one of "repeat please", "rephrase please", "please wait before continuing" would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claim 29:
[Claim 29] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests a second user interface, wherein the second user interface comprises: - a first presentation area for presenting to the second user critical content, which the first user has problems to comprehend and/or to pronounce, - a second presentation area for presenting to the second user non-critical content, which the first user has no problems to comprehend and/or to pronounce, - a microphone, - a loudspeaker, - a display area configured to show the face of a first user which is an interlocutor of the second user, and - an alert area which is configured to indicate an alert if a cognitive overload of the first user is recognized with the help of a cognitive module of the trainings system or to indicate that critical content has been used (at least HARRIS: ¶¶ 1, 4, 52; Parikh: ¶¶ 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 25; ¶ 69: wherein the monitoring of the activities is done by sending notification of the activity result and activity related information to parties involved with trial using email, fax, instant messenger, text message or SMS; ¶ 130: Upon successful completion of the activity module the system will sent notifications to all the individuals involved with the training including Training Administrators by email, text or instant messenger tool. System utilizes off-the-shelf instant messaging technology customized and integrated to this system for instant notification of rewards).
Re claim 30:
[Claim 30] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on wherein the first user interface comprises a further display area configured to display extracted content which is extracted by a software tool from buffered user input data in real time. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of content extraction by a software tool from buffered user input data were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified HARRIS in view of Parikh as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
rewards)
Re claim 31:
[Claim 31] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on wherein the second user interface comprises a further display area configured to display extracted content which is extracted by a software tool from buffered user input data in real time. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of content extraction by a software tool from buffered user input data were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified HARRIS in view of Parikh as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 32:
[Claim 32] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests A user interface comprising: - a presentation area for presenting to a first user critical content, which the first user has problems to comprehend and/or to pronounce, wherein the critical content is presented by pictures and/or symbols, and wherein the first user is a patient, - a microphone, - a loudspeaker, - a display area configured to show the face of a second user which is an interlocutor of the first user, wherein the interlocutor is a family member, a friend or a therapist of the first user, wherein the first user interface is a graphical user interface, and wherein the first user interface and the training system are configured for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders (at least HARRIS: ¶¶ 1, 4, 52; Parikh: ¶¶ 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 25; ¶ 69; FIG. 14, 18B and associated text). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Parikh’s computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication features and modified HARRIS as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 33:
[Claim 33] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the first user interface comprises at least one quick control button, wherein each control button is configured to be used to provide a specific information, request or answer to the interlocutor (at least Parikh: ¶ 121: The speakers and the headphones provide auditory prompting and feedback to the subject during execution of the computer program; ¶ 136: The Subject has to click or touch on the `Play` button to start the activity; ¶ 143: The replay button starts the activity all over again. The training button replays the training part once again). Parikh’s prompting being preferably at least one of "repeat please", "rephrase please", "please wait before continuing" would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claim 34:
[Claim 34] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on wherein the second user interface comprises a further display area configured to display extracted content which is extracted by a software tool from buffered user input data in real time. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of content extraction by a software tool from buffered user input data were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified HARRIS in view of Parikh as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Re claim 35:
[Claim 35] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the user interface is configured for treating speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders (at least Parikh: ¶ 2: education of human subjects, and more specifically to a computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication; ¶ 3: Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior; ¶ 20: a program which disables difficulty in dealing with the social world because it is always changing unpredictably and is different every time for kids with autism, wherein the program would deliver combination of 3D/2D content dynamically based on the student's skill level, area of interest and mental age of the subject and adjust the type of the delivered content material based on the input received from the subject and/or subject's behaviors and body movements; ¶ 21: system, apparatus and method for training individuals with disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior; ¶ 24: provide computer programs for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication).
Re claim 36:
[Claim 36] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the training system comprises at least one cognitive module configured to train and/or to use an artificial intelligence classifier, preferably a classifier comprising a neural network, wherein the classifier generates as an output cognitive load data or the cognitive load of the first user based on task performance data of the first user (at least Parikh: ¶¶ 62-64: upon receiving the wrong answer from the Subject, the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with the same difficulty; b. upon receiving the correct answer from the Subject, the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with increased difficulty; and c. upon receiving multiple wrong answers from the Subject the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with reduced difficulty, wherein the correct and incorrect responses of the graphical components by the Subject are recorded; ¶ 66: wherein the apparatus receives audio-visual content from the artificial intelligence processing unit stored in the content storage unit based on the parameters set, and wherein the audio-video content comprises 2D and 3D animation and visual presentation of the plurality of animated images with audio from the content library). Modifying HARRIS in view of Parikh based on at least two values of psychophysiological load as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention based on common knowledge in the art.
Re claim 37:
[Claim 37] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the training system comprises at least one cognitive module which determines automatically whether a level of tasks has to be kept or increased or decreased for the first user based on at least two values of task performance (at least Parikh: ¶¶ 62-64: upon receiving the wrong answer from the Subject, the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with the same difficulty; b. upon receiving the correct answer from the Subject, the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with increased difficulty; and c. upon receiving multiple wrong answers from the Subject the next visual command and information is delivered on the same training topic with reduced difficulty, wherein the correct and incorrect responses of the graphical components by the Subject are recorded; ¶ 66: wherein the apparatus receives audio-visual content from the artificial intelligence processing unit stored in the content storage unit based on the parameters set, and wherein the audio-video content comprises 2D and 3D animation and visual presentation of the plurality of animated images with audio from the content library). Modifying HARRIS in view of Parikh based on at least two values of psychophysiological load as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the invention based on common knowledge in the art.
Re claim 38:
[Claim 38] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests at least one stimulation functionality for electrical brain stimulation in at least one of a preparation stimulation and/or a task stimulation, wherein the trainings system is configured to perform a at least one individualized training session in which only the first user is trained using at least one of the preparation stimulation and of the task stimulation, and -a social interaction module for performing conversation of the first user and the second user, wherein the conversation is performed after the at least one individualized training session, preferably without using the stimulation functionality, and wherein the interactions of the conversation are transmitted via at least one electronic device between the first user and the second user (at least Parikh: ¶ 2: computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication. The program deliver animated content to the subject and varies the size, clarity, colors, background images, animated characters, sound with animation, method of instructions, so they would be more easily distinguished by the subject and thereby gradually improves the subject's neurological processing and memory of the elements through repetitive stimulation; ¶ 25: wherein the programs deliver animated content to the subject and varies the size, clarity, colors, background images, animated characters, sound with animation, method of instructions, so they would be more easily distinguished by the subject, and thereby gradually improves the subject's neurological processing and memory of the elements through repetitive stimulation; ¶ 45: recording of Subject's actual physical movements including eye movements in streaming video, wherein the logical constructs direct the Subject to recognize and answer the prompted question through visual commands and information, and wherein the training skill levels are measured and configured by the trainer administrator using set of questions on the Subject and the Subject's obtained and targeted skill; ¶¶ 48-52: a. animated educational informative content followed by the question for the Subject to measure the understanding on the topic; b. entertaining visual content using animation and video; c. interactive games; d. providing a plurality of stimulus sets; and e. requiring the Subject to distinguish between the presented target graphical animated image and the presented plurality of distracter images and animation by selecting the target graphical animation associated with the presented command and informational sentence, wherein the plurality of stimulus sets comprising Subject's own or family member of any known individual's photograph, animated avatar and cartoon character, and wherein each of the plurality of stimulus sets group the plurality of command and informational sentences audio/sound according to the Subject's liking, skill level, difficulty level and trainer administrator's preference; ¶ 121: Attached to the computer are a keyboard, speakers, a mouse, and headphones. The speakers and the headphones provide auditory prompting and feedback to the subject during execution of the computer program. The touch screen is used to navigate through the computer program, and to select particular responses after visual or auditory prompting by the computer program).
Re claim 39:
[Claim 39] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests wherein the training system is configured to store critical content and non-critical content generated or updated during the at least one individualized training session in a memory, wherein during the conversation which is performed using the social interaction module, content which is extracted from the conversation is compared with the stored content, and wherein an alert to the second user is generated if critical content is determined (at least HARRIS: ¶ 182: the parent may be alerted to the incoming assignment; ¶ 203: the user interface generates a notification 1706 indicating that at least one student may require a remediation activity; Parikh: ¶ 2: computer program for training the brain development disorder where in human subjects are impaired of social interaction and communication. The program deliver animated content to the subject and varies the size, clarity, colors, background images, animated characters, sound with animation, method of instructions, so they would be more easily distinguished by the subject and thereby gradually improves the subject's neurological processing and memory of the elements through repetitive stimulation; ¶ 204: To assist the instructor in determining how to assign the remediation curriculum activity, notification 1706 includes a link 1710 that, when executed, will pop-up a window depicting the remediation curriculum activity; ¶ 16: 15 five-minute episodes along with 30 interactive quizzes and a written guide for parents. Watch Me Learn is video based program teaches social skills). Any difference with the claimed invention would have ben obvious in view of common knowledge in the art,
Re claim 40:
[Claim 40] HARRIS in view of Parikh teaches or at least suggests treating for speech disabilities and language disabilities and/or for treating cognitive impairments or social impairments connected to the following disorders: stroke, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, namely mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson's disease or neurodevelopment disorders of the first user which is the patient (at least Parikh: ¶¶ 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 25; ¶ 69; FIG. 14, 18B and associated text).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HARRIS in view of Parikh, as applied to claims 1 and 15, in view of Hatton (US 20190139428 A1).
Re claims 7-8:
[Claim 7] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on but Hatton which relates of “the use of biometrics in an educational system to help determine whether, and when, remedial and/or refresher lessons may be desirable to complement the teachings of an initial training session” (¶ 3), Hatton teaches or at least suggests wherein the training functionalities comprise a performance assessment functionality, wherein the performance assessment functionality is configured to determine task performance data which is indicative for the performance of the first user in solving a task, the training functionalities comprise a cognitive load functionality configured to determine cognitive load data depending on the task performance data and/or depending on psychophysiological data, wherein the cognitive load data are indicative for the cognitive load of the first user, the psychophysiological data are indicative for at least one psychophysiological measurement performed on the first user using a detector, the operation control system is configured to control the training depending on the determined cognitive load of the first user (at least ¶ 4: Biometric sensors, such as facial expression detection systems, pupil/iris detection systems, heart rate monitoring systems, Galvanic skin response sensors, blood pressure sensors, and/or others may be used to monitor a student's physiological reactions during a training lesson. The biometric responses may be processed to identify certain kinds of human emotional reactions, such as anger, fear, disgust, sadness, vigilance, etc., and those emotional reactions may be processed to generate a biometric score, such as a cognitive depth factor (CDF), indicating the student's overall training emotional state for the lesson; ¶ 5: The student's score on that test may be adjusted using the biometric score to result in a strength of learning (SoL) score for the student, and the SoL score may be used to determine whether further instruction is warranted and when refresher training should be scheduled; ¶ 44: a strength of learning (SoL) value may be determined for a student after a particular lesson and based on the student's emotional reactions during the lesson. The grading scale for the lesson might indicate levels of proficiency based on the SoL, and consequences for the student achieving that level. For example, a lesson on operating a forklift might have the following SoL scale; ¶ 45: … For the example of an SoL score of 71, that student's SoL may be designated as fair, and one or more additional training lessons may be scheduled for the student. The additional training lessons need not be a complete copy of the original training, and may instead be a shorter version that addresses particular areas that the student may have struggled with. These particular areas may be determined based on the results of an examination administered to the student during or after the lesson (e.g., correlating incorrect answers with particular follow-up lessons)). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Hatton’s strength of learning (SoL) score features and modified HARRIS in view of Parikh as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 8] HARRIS in view of Parikh and Hatton appears to be silent on wherein the cognitive load functionality is configured to the determine cognitive load data depending on self-report provided by the first user. However, the concept and advantages of self-report measures were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as evident in Hatton (¶¶ 75, 77: self-reported interest/expertise in subject matter; self-reported confidence). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Hatton’s self-reporting features and modified HARRIS in view of Parikh and Hatton as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HARRIS in view of Parikh, as applied to claim 1, in view of Bentwich (US 20120221075 A1).
Re claim 9:
[Claim 9] HARRIS in view of Parikh appears to be silent on wherein the training functionalities comprise a stimulation functionality which is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a stimulation command to an electrical brain stimulation device to cause the electrical brain stimulation device to perform an electrical brain stimulation procedure, the presentation functionality is configured to cause the electronic control unit to issue a presentation command in order to present a training task to be performed by the first user via a user interface, the stimulation functionality comprises a task stimulation functionality for a task stimulation, the task stimulation is configured to be synchronized with the presentation of the training task. However, the concept and advantages of using a device capable of stimulating brain regions in order to enhance brain function/s and/or cognitive and/or behavioral and/or electrophysiological functioning and/or in normal individual/s and/or in individual/s suffering from any brain related disease were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as evident in Bentwich (at least ¶ 1: implantation (or non-invasive) brain stimulation methodology and/or device allows for the identification and placement of the Brain Optimizer stimulating components precisely at the right localization needed to effectively stimulate the aberrant or abnormal or dysfunctional or impaired brain function (which can be disease-specific and/or individual-based) or to enhance brain functioning in normals due to the fact that it interactively or iteratively measures an adjusts the localization and/or loci/locus of brain stimulation (at single or multiple brain localizations) and/or the stimulation parameters--e.g., in terms of electrical/electromagnetic brain stimulation (intensity, duration, timing, synchronization, even-related and/or function-specific and/or criteria-based), and/or cognitive or behavioral or neurophysiological stimulation and/or neurophysiological or brain activation response to such electrical/electromagnetic and/or cognitive or behavioral or any other brain function stimulation; ¶ 20: time-locked synchronized electromagnetic or electrical stimulation of diseased or impaired brain region/s, loci or locus that is synchronized with the presentation, training, stimulation and/or response that are associated or specific for a particular brain region/s allows for the restoration, alteration, regeneration or otherwise neuroplasticity or therapeutic effects that are specific to a particular disease/s and/or region/s and/or individual). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used Bentwich’s brain stimulation methodology and/or device features and modified HARRIS as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known method (device, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
In view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks, some of the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn and some remain, as shown above and not repeated herein.
Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that “the claimed invention cannot be practiced by "a human mind, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper”. However, Applicant simply asserts that “the first user interface comprises a microphone, loudspeaker, display area
configured to show interlocutor face, which together treat” a number of disabilities to support that “treatment and physical components cannot be practiced in the human mind and takes the claim out of "method of organizing human activity and mental process groupings"”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Humans have long treated the noted impairments and disabilities without the need for a computer. As noted in the rejections above, the claimed limitations to/for “produce user capability data”, “present a feature”, “presenting … critical content”, “show the face of a second user” and “treating speech disabilities and language disabilities …” do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, representative claim 1 as a whole fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions performed by the computer system at each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance as noted above.
Applicant’s hypothetical Example 23 of the USPTO’s “July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Hypothetical Example 23 was found patent eligible because of the claim’s “adaptive and dynamic nature . . . to provide for personalized interactions and user interfaces.” Hypothetical claim 1 of Example 23 is directed to a computer-implemented method for dynamically relocating information on a graphical user interface (“GUI”) if a window overlap condition exists. The July 2015 Update explains, at page 9 of Appendix 1, that the hypothetical example’s claim 1 is patent eligible because it is not directed to an abstract idea (e.g., it “does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing information”), but instead is “necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem [i.e., overlapping windows and obscured text in GUIs] specifically arising in graphical user interfaces.” Here, the claimed first user interface, second user interface, microphone, loudspeaker and display are used in their ordinary, generic capacities to/for “produce user capability data”, “present a feature”, “presenting … critical content”, “show the face of a second user” and “treating speech disabilities and language disabilities …” rather than reciting a specific improvement to the recited additional elements and/or computers. The instant case does not entail “dynamically relocating information on” any of the “graphical user interface (“GUI”) if a window overlap condition exists”. Additionally, the originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification does not provide any reference to “dynamically relocating information on” any of the “graphical user interface (“GUI”) if a window overlap condition exists”. Contrary to Hypothetical Example 23, there is no improvement in computer technology that overcomes a problem specifically arising in user interfaces.
Applicant’s Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir., 2018) arguments are also not persuasive. The Examiner fails to see and Applicant fails to indicate how any of the additional elements taken alone or in combination supports a finding of patent eligibility, matching the fact patterns of Vanda.
Although “an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition” may indicate that a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (emphasis added), the instant claim 1 does not recite a particular treatment. In Vanda, “[t]he inventors recognized the relationships between iloperidone, CYP2D6 metabolism, and QTc prolongation, . . . [and] claimed an application of that relationship.” Id. at 1135. “Thus, the . . . claims are ‘a new way of using an existing drug’ that is safer for patients because it reduces the risk of QTc prolongation.” Id. In contrast, the instant claim 1 does not recite using a specific drug, at a specific dosage, to treat a cancer cell expressing a specific glycoprotein biomarker. It simply recites limitations to/for “produce user capability data”, “present a feature”, “presenting … critical content”, “show the face of a second user” and then “treating speech disabilities and language disabilities …”. Representative claim 1 is not directed to a new way of using an existing drug in the same way the Vanda claims were.
Applicant’s claim 32 arguments are not persuasive. Humans have long presented content using pen and paper. Presenting content based on certain conditions is done based on evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a common part of teaching. The claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s).
Claim 40 is dependent on claim 1 and, as such recites the same abstract idea(s) noted for claim 1. The limitation recited in the claim is present in claim 1 and, as such does not further limit claim 1. Hence, claim 40 is rejected for reasons similar to those explained when addressing representative independent Claim 1, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, independent claim 40, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Various dependent claims also satisfy section 101:
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, computer elements, for example, “electronic communication means”, “buttons” are generic computer elements described at a high level of generality and are each used as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Additionally, the lack of a prior art rejection of the claims is not determinative of an inventive concept. See Western Express Bancshares v. Green Dot Corp., Appeal No. 2020-1079, 2020 WL 3967855, *3 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020) (“But the absence of the exact invention in the prior art does not prove the existence of an inventive concept.”).
For at least the above reasons and contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the combination of the features of the claims as a whole do not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea under step 2A and are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more under step 2B. As a result, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights