Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
In response to the amendment filed 11/29/2025, claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that claims are directed to practical application because claims recite “collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source” and cannot be performed mentally and therefore describe a practical application, it is respectfully disagreed. Applicant’s amendment filed 11/29/2025, p. 7. In particular, the limitation is merely insignificant extra-solution activities which does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. See infra 101 analysis for further detail.
In response to the argument that Anderson fails to teach limitation "determining choices that are made as to possible options in a flow, wherein the flow is accessed as a state of optimal experience in an activity," it is respectfully disagreed. Applicant’s amendment filed 11/29/2025, p. 7. In particular, the limitation is rejected as being indefinite as being relative and subjective. See infra 112(b) rejection for further detail. As the flow can be any mental state a person can subjectively determine, Anderson’s mental state reads on the limitation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the alternative prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 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.
The term “optimal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” 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. First, claim does not define what constitutes “optimal”. The specification describes “Flow, also known as the "flow state," is a psychological concept that refers to a state of optimal experience or complete absorption in an activity,” which suggests that the flow and its state of optimal experience is at best subjective determination from the psychological concept. Spec. ¶15. For the reasons, other independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims thereof are rejected as well.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The 1, 8, and 15 claim(s) recite(s):
A computer-implementable method [claim 1];
A system comprising: a plurality of processing systems communicably coupled through a network, wherein the processing systems include non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations [claim 8];
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code [claim 15];
for creating competency assessments and insights as to skills-profiles comprising:
providing multiple choices at a data source for an individual;
collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source;
determining choices that are made as to possible options in a flow, wherein the flow is accessed as a state of optimal experience in an activity
processing the options based on desirable skill sets of the flow; and
assessing competency level and skills profiles based on the processing of the options.
The non-highlighted aforementioned, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implementable” [claim 1], “processing systems” and “through a network” [claim 8], “computer-readable storage medium” [claims 8 and 15], “data source,” and “collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher assessing students’ skills and competencies based on observed students’ activities.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher assessing students’ skills and competencies based on observed students’ activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computer-implementable,” “processing systems,” “a network,” “computer-readable storage medium,” “data source,” and “collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source.”
The “computer-implementable,” “processing systems,” and “computer-readable storage medium” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “network” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the following additional elements: “[providing data] at a data source” and “collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source.” The additional element step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of displaying information to perform the aforementioned step(s) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of “human machine interaction” [claims 2, 9, and 16], “video game, movie, or vehicle” [claims 3, 10, and 17], which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element of “human machine interaction” and “video game, movie, or vehicle” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Anderson et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0317831), hereinafter Anderson or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anderson in view of Bedor et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0051460), hereinafter Bedor.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Anderson discloses a computer-implementable method/system/medium for creating competency assessments and insights as to skills-profiles (Abstract) comprising:
providing multiple choices at a data source for an individual (3405 in FIG. 34; ¶219: “Processor 102, 312 provides one or more questions and a set of answer options for each of the one or more questions to the assessment platform, at 3405.”; ¶220: “For example, the user may be asked, “What would you do?” with multiple-choice options relevant to the scenario displayed on the screen.”);
collecting and transforming machine readable data from the data source (3406 in FIG. 34; ¶219: “For each of the questions, the user selects an answer from the associated answer options provided using the user interface 106, 324, at 3406.”);
determining choices that are made as to possible options in a flow, wherein the flow is accessed as a state of optimal experience in an activity (3406 in FIG. 34; ¶219: “For each of the questions, the user selects an answer from the associated answer options provided using the user interface 106, 324, at 3406.”; ¶219 also discloses that possible options are associated with different emotions or feelings to account for how the user feels: “In some embodiments, processor provides a third question asking the user why they selected the selected answer option in response to the second question and the answer options for the third question provide a plurality of different emotions or feelings to account for how the user feels about the selection that they made.”);
processing the options based on desirable skill sets of the flow (3407 in FIG. 34; ¶219: “The interactive game component 132, 346 of the games module 124, 338 determines a trial outcome based on the answer(s) provided by the user in response to the one or more questions provided, at 3407”); and
assessing competency level and skills profiles based on the processing of the options (3409 in FIG. 34; ¶219: “Once all trials are complete, the games module 124, 338 determines the game outcome based on the trial outcome(s), at 3309.”).
Alternatively, Anderson does not explicitly disclose “a flow1, wherein the flow is accessed as a state of optimal experience in an activity.”
Bedor teaches system and method for teaching curriculum as an educational game (Abstract) comprising the flow, wherein the flow is accessed as a state of optimal experience in an activity (¶229: “the narrative frame 572 is configured to guide the user into and sustain a flow state.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in Anderson by adding the flow features as taught in Bedor in order to “promot[e] longer and more focused game play with greater learning outcomes” (Bedor, ¶229).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Anderson further discloses that the providing multiple choices is through human machine interaction (¶218: “FIG. 34 is a process flow diagram of a computer-implemented method 3400 of determining a measure of socio-moral solutions, perspective taking/empathy, and/or moral reasoning, according to some embodiments, the method operable by the assessment system 100, 302, and in particular, execution of the processor(s) 102, 312 of an interactive game component 132, 346 of the games module 124, 338 of the assessment application 118, 330.”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Anderson further discloses that the data source is one of a video game, movie, or vehicle (¶218: “an interactive game component 132”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Anderson further discloses that the choices are presented in conflict situation in a configurable decision model (¶219: “a first image stimulus depicting a dilemma… In some embodiments, processor provides a first question asking the user what they would do in the situation or dilemma depicted in the image stimuli and the answer options for the first question provide a plurality of different actions that might be taken in view of the dilemma.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Anderson further discloses that the processing the options determines if the individual demonstrates the desirable skill sets (¶220: “The number of trials may be selected based on the age of the user. The trials are individualised based on the user's age and gender so that the stimuli closely resemble a real-life scenario for the user.”; ¶219: “For example, the interactive game component 132, 346 of the games module 124, 338 compares the answers provided by the user with target answers associated with the questions to determine whether or not the answered provided by the user are deemed to be correct. In some embodiments, the interactive game component 132, 346 determines a trial outcome based on a percentage of correct answers provided by the user. In some embodiments, the trial outcome may further depend on a time value indicative of the time taken by the user to provide answers to the questions of the trial.”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Anderson further discloses that the assessing includes determined competency level of the individual (¶218: “determining a measure of socio-moral solutions, perspective taking/empathy, and/or moral reasoning of the user”).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Anderson further discloses that the skill sets are desirable predetermined skills (¶218: “determining a measure of socio-moral solutions, perspective taking/empathy, and/or moral reasoning of the user”).
Conclusion
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 THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 Spec. ¶15 (“Flow, also known as the "flow state," is a psychological concept that refers to a state of optimal experience or complete absorption in an activity.)
Prosecution Insights