DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “self-psychology” is recited with and without a hyphen. Uniformity is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are missing grammatical elements (e.g., commas, separating sub-limitations on new lines with further indenting, etc.) that aid clarity. For example, claim 1 recites “creating a profile, wherein the user will create a profile for use of the self-development method, wherein during creating a profile a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar is produced to represent the user”. However, “wherein during creating a profile a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar is produced to represent the user” is missing theses grammatical elements. To aid clarity, “during creating a profile a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar is produced to represent the user” should begin on a new line with further indentation to make clear that it is a sub-limitation and include a comma after “profile”.
Claim 5 includes a misspelling of the term “behavior” in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the user can inputs”. This is grammatically incorrect. This should recite “the user can input”.
Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Claims 1-13 use both terms “the” and “said”. It is unclear what separate meaning is intended with the use of each compared to the other. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, these terms are construed such that no separate meaning is inferred. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “conventional communication protocols” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional communication protocols” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the claim recites “providing the software application, said software application being stored on a computing device, wherein the computing device is accessible via conventional communication protocols” followed by “downloading the software application, wherein users will download the software application onto a remote computing device”. However, the specification recites “[i]n step 101, the operator of the self-development method 100 published the software application of the present invention to an application repository, website or computing device so as to make available to potential users via conventional communication protocols.” Thus, while the claim recites that the computing device is accessible via conventional communication protocols, the specification recites that the software application is available via conventional communication protocols. But, the disclosure is silent what these communication protocols are or what makes them conventional, as well as being unclear between the claim and the specification regarding which elements communicate using such protocols. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 1, “a profile” is recited three times in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether the second and third recitations are the same profile as the first recitation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, each recitation is construed to refer the same profile. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “and further including a step of providing an inner child category tool of self-knowledge, and further including a step of providing an inner child category tool of self-knowledge”. It is unclear what meaning is imparted by repeating “and further including a step of providing an inner child category tool of self-knowledge”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this is construed as a typo. Dependent claims 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the wisdom guide avatar provides generation of questions to be answered by the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this is performed in results-based language without describing the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 24 of the specification which provides the only mention of generating questions and only recites that “the software application will generate questions for which the user must supply answers” without any further description of what this generating entails and is silent regarding question generation is provided by an avatar. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “establishing a development value for the selected self-knowledge tool, wherein the development value is recorded in said personal database; and identifying a self-knowledge tool for a user to engage to drive improvement therein based on the development value” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this is performed in results-based language without describing the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 25 of the specification which recites that “[i]t should be understood within the scope of the present invention that the software application will assign a development value for each of the categories discussed herein. The development value identifies in which categories the user excels and in which categories the user will be guided for improvement therein. As the user focuses on a category, the activities and/or exercises provided by the software application will result in an increase in the development value of that category.” Thus, the disclosure is silent regarding how the development value is determined. Dependent claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a step of providing an emotional self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is guided through an emotional regulation simulation that teaches the user about emotional management and identification of emotions” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 27 of the specification which provides the only mention regarding this limitation and recites that “the user is guided through an emotional regulation simulation that teaches the user about emotional management, identification of emotions, breathing and other parameters such as but not limited to judgement.” Dependent claims 5-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a step of providing an ideal self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is guided through an ideal self simulation” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 27 of the specification which merely recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description. Dependent claims 7-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein answers to the questions about social behavior are… employed to determine a development value of the ideal social category tool of self-knowledge” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 25 of the specification which recites that “[i]t should be understood within the scope of the present invention that the software application will assign a development value for each of the categories discussed herein. The development value identifies in which categories the user excels and in which categories the user will be guided for improvement therein. As the user focuses on a category, the activities and/or exercises provided by the software application will result in an increase in the development value of that category.” Dependent claims 8-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein answers to the questions about inner child category are… employed to determine a development value of the inner child category tool of self-knowledge” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 25 of the specification which recites that “[i]t should be understood within the scope of the present invention that the software application will assign a development value for each of the categories discussed herein. The development value identifies in which categories the user excels and in which categories the user will be guided for improvement therein. As the user focuses on a category, the activities and/or exercises provided by the software application will result in an increase in the development value of that category.” Dependent claims 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a step of providing a cognitive self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the software application generates questions to the user for answering thereof for determination of cognitive ability of the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 24 of the specification which provides the only mention of generating questions and recites that “the software application will generate questions for which the user must supply answers” without any further description of what this generating entails. Dependent claims 11-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the software application determines a development value of the individual need category tool of self-knowledge” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 25 of the specification which recites that “[i]t should be understood within the scope of the present invention that the software application will assign a development value for each of the categories discussed herein. The development value identifies in which categories the user excels and in which categories the user will be guided for improvement therein. As the user focuses on a category, the activities and/or exercises provided by the software application will result in an increase in the development value of that category.” Dependent claims 12 and 13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a step of providing an inner child category tool of self-knowledge, and further including a step of providing an inner child category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is presented with questions regarding events of childhood, wherein answers to the questions about inner child category are… employed to determine a development value of the inner child category tool of self-knowledge” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that this limitation is performed in results-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed limitation so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See, for example, at least para. 25 of the specification which recites that “[i]t should be understood within the scope of the present invention that the software application will assign a development value for each of the categories discussed herein. The development value identifies in which categories the user excels and in which categories the user will be guided for improvement therein. As the user focuses on a category, the activities and/or exercises provided by the software application will result in an increase in the development value of that category.” Dependent claim 13 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A self-development method facilitated by a software application wherein the self-development method drives personal understanding and behavioral improvement and wherein the self-development method comprises the steps of:
providing the software application, said software application being stored on a computing device, wherein the computing device is accessible via conventional communication protocols;
downloading the software application, wherein users will download the software application onto a remote computing device;
creating a profile, wherein the user will create a profile for use of the self-development method, wherein during creating a profile a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar is produced to represent the user;
providing a visual simulation, wherein the user is provided with a graphical interface of a simulated environment;
providing a wisdom guide avatar, wherein the wisdom guide avatar is a three-dimensional avatar that is graphically presented adjacent to the personal three-dimensional avatar during utilization of the software application;
establishing a personal database, wherein the wisdom guide avatar provides generation of questions to be answered by the user and wherein the answers are recorded into the personal database;
introducing a plurality of self-knowledge tools, wherein the software application provides a plurality of categories of self-knowledge tools to the user;
selecting at least one self-knowledge tool, wherein the user selects a self-knowledge tool from the plurality of categories of self-knowledge tools;
completing the selected self-knowledge tool, wherein the user is presented with questions during engagement with the selected self-knowledge tool;
recording answers to the questions from the selected self-knowledge tool in said personal database;
establishing a development value for the selected self-knowledge tool, wherein the development value is recorded in said personal database; and
identifying a self-knowledge tool for a user to engage to drive improvement therein based on the development value.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The steps, except for the providing steps, also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims, except claim 3 which is addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a software application (claim 1), a computing device accessible via conventional communication protocols (claim 1), downloading the software application onto a remote computing device (claim 1), a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar (claim 1), a graphical interface of a simulated environment (claim 1), reciting the wisdom guide avatar is a three-dimensional avatar that is graphically presented adjacent to the personal three-dimensional avatar during utilization of the software application (claim 1), and reciting the user profile avatar is created through uploading of a picture of the user (claim 3). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1 and 2 merely illustrate two high-level flow charts, while at least para. 22-30 of the specification merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement. Furthermore, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. For example, para. 22 recites that “the self-development method 100 is facilitated by a software application wherein the software application is configured to be operated on computing devices such as but not limited to smartphones and computers. In step 101, the operator of the self-development method 100 published the software application of the present invention to an application repository, website or computing device so as to make available to potential users via conventional communication protocols.” This also evidences that the judicial exception is not implemented with a particular machine or manufacture, and thus is not providing any technical solution to a technical problem. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding such possible rules. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. For example, para. 4 identifies that the scope of the claimed invention is to use a software application to perform human activity (“provide a software application operable to facilitate self-development of a user without the requirement for a professional therapist”). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite computer components, identified above, for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, transmitting, outputting data). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1 and 2 merely illustrate two high-level flow charts, while at least para. 22-30 of the specification merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement. Furthermore, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. For example, para. 22 recites that “the self-development method 100 is facilitated by a software application wherein the software application is configured to be operated on computing devices such as but not limited to smartphones and computers. In step 101, the operator of the self-development method 100 published the software application of the present invention to an application repository, website or computing device so as to make available to potential users via conventional communication protocols.” The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification as identified above. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalmick et al. (US 2018/0247554).
Regarding claim 1, Kalmick teaches a self-development method facilitated by a software application wherein the self-development method drives personal understanding and behavioral improvement and wherein the self-development method comprises the steps of:
providing the software application, said software application being stored on a computing device, wherein the computing device is accessible via conventional communication protocols (Kalmick, para. 38, “A program (e.g., a computer program or application) may run on the electronic device(s) to provide social stories or games to a user (e.g., a student).”);
downloading the software application, wherein users will download the software application onto a remote computing device (Kalmick, para. 38, “A program (e.g., a computer program or application) may run on the electronic device(s) to provide social stories or games to a user (e.g., a student).” One of ordinary skill in the art understands that, at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the application would be downloaded in order to get the application on the electronic device.);
creating a profile, wherein the user will create a profile for use of the self-development method (Kalmick, para. 68, “the program may suggest certain settings and options ( e.g., a profile) based on the functioning of a particular ASD individual.”), wherein during creating a profile a graphical personal three-dimensional avatar is produced to represent the user (Kalmick, para. 38, “The user may be represented in the program by a cartoon-like avatar meant to imitate the user so that the user can more easily become immersed in the social story.” Para. 50, “the user (or a supervising adult, such as a parent, teacher, therapist, etc.) may design an avatar to be displayed in the program.”);
providing a visual simulation, wherein the user is provided with a graphical interface of a simulated environment (Kalmick, para. 38, “provide social stories or games to a user… Each social story or game in the program may have one or more associated templates. The templates define how the story or game progresses and how the story or game is presented to the student and/or supervising adult, as further described below.”);
providing a wisdom guide avatar, wherein the wisdom guide avatar is a three-dimensional avatar that is graphically presented adjacent to the personal three-dimensional avatar during utilization of the software application (Kalmick, para. 42, “the program according to embodiments of the present invention may display cartoonish representations (e.g., avatars) of certain individuals with whom the ASD individual may interact in addition to the user's own avatar.”);
establishing a personal database, wherein the wisdom guide avatar provides generation of questions to be answered by the user and wherein the answers are recorded into the personal database (Kalmick, para. 47, “After listening to and/or reading the RAP, the user is presented with a question and number of possible answers.” Para. 55, “the program may store the user's selected feelings or emotions (e.g., the selected answers)”; para. 56, “The program may store the results of many sessions over time.”);
introducing a plurality of self-knowledge tools, wherein the software application provides a plurality of categories of self-knowledge tools to the user (Kalmick, para. 45, “the program, according to example embodiments, provides social lessons (or social stories) that employ GVMs to indicate that a certain individual, represented by an avatar in the program, has a thought and/or is experiencing an emotion. A single social lesson may be referred to as a ‘session.’” Para. 64, “When the program is started on a device, an opening screen may present the user with different program modes, such as fundamental stories, social stories, and games.”);
selecting at least one self-knowledge tool, wherein the user selects a self-knowledge tool from the plurality of categories of self-knowledge tools (Kalmick, para. 64, “When the program is started on a device, an opening screen may present the user with different program modes, such as fundamental stories, social stories, and games. When the user selects a certain mode, the user is presented with particular templates (e.g., different stories or games). When the user selects a certain template, that template may be loaded onto the device, either from a local memory or from a remote server (e.g., the could) and a new session is started.”);
completing the selected self-knowledge tool, wherein the user is presented with questions during engagement with the selected self-knowledge tool (Kalmick, para. 47, “After listening to and/or reading the RAP, the user is presented with a question and number of possible answers.”);
recording answers to the questions from the selected self-knowledge tool in said personal database (Kalmick, para. 55, “the program may store the user's selected feelings or emotions (e.g., the selected answers)”; para. 56, “The program may store the results of many sessions over time.”);
establishing a development value for the selected self-knowledge tool, wherein the development value is recorded in said personal database (Kalmick, para. 56, “The program may store the results of many sessions over time. For example, the user may complete one social lesson a plurality of times, and the program may store the results of each of the plays through the one social lesson. Thus, the supervising adult can see how the user has progressed and is progressing by completing the social lesson multiple times and can better determine which emotions or feelings the user is struggling to understand.” Para. 57, “Also, some embodiments include progress tracking. In addition to the recording and replay functionality, the program may be able track the progress of a number of users. For example, when the program is used by a plurality of users in a same class or by a same therapist, the teacher or therapist may track the users' progress through different social lessons.”); and
identifying a self-knowledge tool for a user to engage to drive improvement therein based on the development value (Kalmick, para. 57, “By tracking the users' progress, the teacher or therapist may be able to determine trends in the users' learning, such as particular emotions or feelings the users are able to readily determine and other emotions or feelings the users cannot readily determine. Thus, the teacher or therapist can tailor lesson or treatment plans with the users and can determine which social lessons the users should play to best improve the users' social skills. In some embodiments, the program may review the results of the users' various sessions and may provide the teacher or therapist with a list of emotions or feelings with which the users are comfortable. For example, the program may output a list of emotions or feelings ranked in order from most comfortable, which could mean they are most often selected correctly by the users, to least comfortable, which could mean they are least often selected correctly by the users.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalmick et al. (US 2018/0247554).
Regarding claim 2, Kalmick teaches the self-development method facilitated by the software application operable to drive improvement in personal understanding as recited in claim 1.
Kalmick does not explicitly teach further including a step of providing a physical self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the physical self category of self-knowledge includes an ability to select a body part of a user and enter information thereabout into said personal database.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The method would be performed the same regardless of what the category is. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kalmick to further include a step of providing a physical self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the physical self category of self-knowledge includes an ability to select a body part of a user and enter information thereabout into said personal database because what the categories are labeled as is merely a design choice that does not functionally relate to the steps claimed and has not been disclosed to solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalmick et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, further in view of Utter (US 2014/0125480).
Regarding claim 3, Kalmick in view of Utter teaches the self-development method facilitated by the software application operable to drive improvement in personal understanding as recited in claim 2.
Kalmick does not explicitly teach wherein the user profile avatar is created through uploading of a picture of the user.
However, in a related art, Utter teaches wherein the user profile avatar is created through uploading of a picture of the user (Utter, para. 77, “Avatar and goals element 1206 also may enable a user to create an avatar… by uploading a user’s own picture or graphic”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kalmick to substitute picture uploading as taught by Utter for the user avatar design process in Kalmick to create the user profile avatar because it is one of several known methods for creating an avatar well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Utter, para. 77, “Avatar and goals element 1206 also may enable a user to create an avatar, either by selecting from predetermined avatars, by uploading a user’s own picture or graphic, or other known methods for creating an avatar.”). Thus, it is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Kalmick in view of Utter teaches the self-development method facilitated by the software application operable to drive improvement in personal understanding as recited in claim 3, and further including a step of providing an emotional self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is guided through an emotional regulation simulation that teaches the user about emotional management and identification of emotions (Kalmick, para. 45, “Other social stories focus on… emotional and physical self-regulation”).
Regarding claim 5, Kalmick in view of Utter teaches the self-development method facilitated by the software application operable to drive improvement in personal understanding as recited in claim 4, and further including a step of providing a behvior self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is provided a list of questions about behavior and personality traits and wherein answers thereto are recorded in said personal database (Kalmick, para. 45, “Other social stories focus on people and friendship skills,… executive functioning and life skills,… and impulsivity”; para. 47, “The question may force the user to consider the displayed situation from the avatar's position, thereby improving their social skills. For example, the RAP may be related to a certain action or interaction between the displayed avatars.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kalmick in view of Utter teaches the self-development method facilitated by the software application operable to drive improvement in personal understanding as recited in claim 5.
Kalmick does not explicitly teach further including a step of providing an ideal self category tool of self-knowledge, wherein the user is guided through an ideal self simulation wherein the user can inputs parameters regarding aspirations, dreams and goals.
However these differences