Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/103,885

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATING SPECIAL EFFECTS TO A STORY

Final Rejection §101§102
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Priority
Feb 02, 2022 — provisional 63/305,958
Examiner
ELISCA, PIERRE E
Art Unit
3715
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Learnerix Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
1393 granted / 1546 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1565
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§103
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1546 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/103,885 filed on 01/31/2023. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined. Priority This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 63/305,958 filed 02/02/2022. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications. If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 5. 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. 6. Claims 1, 10, 11, and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the limitations of: “generating an interactive story and receive an audible input of reading a story book from a user”. The limitation of generating an interactive story and receive an audible input of reading a story book from a user, is a product, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claims preclude from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1-11 recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using an electronic device is configured to cause one or more special effects matching the audible input to activate the plurality of pre-determined triggers, and wherein the electronic device is configured to output one or more special effects matching the audible input”. The electronic device recites at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. In the instant case, the claims do 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 “determine whether the audible input matches at least one of the plurality of pre-determined triggers via a voice recognition algorithm and command the electronic device to output a first special effect associated with the story book; receive additional audible input from the user; determine whether the additional audible input matches at least one of the pre-determined triggers via the voice recognition algorithm and command the electronic device to output a second special effect associated with the story book, wherein the second special effect is different than the first special effect; continuously listen for an receive additional audible input from the user; immerse one or more participants into the interactive story, wherein the input device take one or more pictures of one or more participants and selects a picture of the one or more participant’s face or create an avatar or select an avatar to interact with the interactive story”, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. 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)(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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Preti John et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0183381). As per claim 10, Preti discloses a computer-implemented method for depicting character dialogue within a story (see., abstract); comprising a story book selection mechanism that permits a reader to select one or more of the plurality of story books (see., paragraphs 0014 and 0015); create and edit the story books (see., paragraphs 0033, 0039, and 0041); add/edit text layers and add/edit background layers (see., paragraphs 0034, identifying character dialogue within text, 0086, 0089, and Fig 6, background or cloud layer); add/edit character layers (see., paragraphs 0037, 0086, and Fig 6); add animations and motions layer (paragraph 0037, animation is readable as avatar motion layer); and add visual (visual or display user device 130, or the device that is displaying the electronic text, paragraph 0044) and sound effect (sound effect or microphone and/or camera capable of processing the voice of the user, paragraph 0044) on the images and characters( see., 0033, 0037, 0048, and 0053ZZ). Conclusion 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PIERRE E ELISCA whose telephone number is (571) 272-6706. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday; 6:30AM- 7:30PM. Hoteler. 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, Hu Kang can be reached on 571 270 1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PIERRE E ELISCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102
Oct 17, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 26, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12629590
INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR INTERACTING THEREWITH
2y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12609003
System for Community Play of Card, Poker, Lottery, and Slot Games
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12608998
GAMING ESTABLISHMENT ACCOUNT REFUNDING FOR LACK OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSACTIONS
2y 10m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12594461
USER EXERCISE DETECTION METHOD, ROBOT AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592162
FLIGHT SIMULATION SYSTEM
2y 11m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.4%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1546 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month