DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on April 23, 2026 for the patent application 18/105,111 originally filed on February 2, 2023. Claims 3 and 14 are amended. Claims 1, 2, and 4-13 are canceled. Claims 15-27 are new. Claims 3 and 14-27 remain pending. The first office action of September 30, 2025 and the second action of January 23, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 101, for reasons set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a pre-assessment module” in claim 3.
“a patient profile module” in claim 3.
“a treatment selection module” in claim 3.
“a communication module” in claim 3.
“a treatment operations module” in claim 3.
“a bias calculation module” in claims 3 and 21.
“a reporting module” in claim 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, each of the modules is interpreted from instant specification paragraph 23 (“a patient device connected to a remote treatment/assessment computer having modules for delivering image sets to the patient device, collecting timing and location data, calculating attention bias, generating reports, connecting to secure storage, and managing encrypted communications.”) and paragraph 157 (“The present invention may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof and may be implemented in a computer system or other processing system”) as being either hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software components of a computer.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-25 are rejected under 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.
Claims 15-24 depend upon canceled claim 1. The Examiner believes these claims were intended to depend upon claim 3. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, claims 15-24 will be examined in this office action as if they depend upon claim 3.
Claim 25 depends upon canceled claim 11. The Examiner believes claim 25 was intended to depend upon claim 24. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, claim 25 will be examined in this office action as if it depends upon claim 24.
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.
3 and 14-27 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 significantly more.
Claim 3 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine) and claim 26 is directed to “a computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “delivering a treatment session to reduce attention bias in a patient,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations (exemplary claim 3):
“send, using a pre-assessment module, a pre-assessment instrument … to present diagnostic survey questions, receive patient inputs, and generate a pre-assessment patient profile…
analyze, using a patient profile module, the pre-assessment patient profile and communicate with a treatment selection module configured to select one or more treatment sessions from stored treatment sessions in a connected database;
transmit, using a communication module, the selected one or more treatment sessions… and send a pre-assessment profile completion notification…
control, using a treatment operations module, delivery of the treatment session and collection of data from the treatment session. wherein the treatment session comprises:
sending a set of instructions for completing the treatment session…
displaying a fixation symbol for a specific time period… the fixation symbol selected from a database of fixation symbols:
displaying a set of multiple stimuli image pairs… each stimuli image pair being displayed for no more than 500 milliseconds and then removed…
re-locating the stimuli image pairs from frame to frame such that… locations of the stimuli image pairs in a previous frame are different from… locations of the stimuli image pairs in a subsequent frame:
receiving… an input response related to one image of a previously displayed stimuli image pair;
recording, using a timer, a length of time from removal of the stimuli image pair… to receipt of the input response;
recording… location of the input response and analyzing… location accuracy of the input response;
transmit, using the communication module, treatment session data to a bias calculation module, the treatment session data including… locations of stimuli image pairs, input responses, input response latency, and treatment session duration;
analyze, using the bias calculation module, the treatment session data to determine an attention bias; and
store and report, using a reporting module, results of the treatment session… and transmit at least a portion of the results...”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a system,” “a treatment computer,” “one or more processors,” “memory,” “a patient device,” “an input device,” “a display,” “a treatment provider device,” “secure storage,” “a pre-assessment module,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” and “a reporting module” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “delivering a treatment session to reduce attention bias in a patient,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., “a system,” “a treatment computer,” “one or more processors,” “memory,” “a patient device,” “an input device,” “a display,” “a treatment provider device,” “secure storage,” “a pre-assessment module,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” and “a reporting module” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, Applicant’s claimed “a system,” “a treatment computer,” “one or more processors,” “a patient device,” and “a treatment provider device” are described in instant specification paragraphs 35-37 as follows: “the treatment computer having a communication module configured to transmit the one or more treatment sessions to the patient device, and configured to send a pre-assessment profile completion notification to a treatment provider device, the treatment computer having a treatment operations module configured to control delivery of the treatment session and collection data from the treatment session, the treatment session comprises first sending a set of instructions for completing the treatment session to the patient device, and then displaying a fixation symbol for a specific time period on a display of the patient device, the fixation symbol is selected from a connected database of fixation symbols, and then after displaying the fixation symbol, a treatment session consisting of a set of multiple stimuli image pairs is delivered to the patient device, each of the stimuli image pairs are displayed for no more than 500 ms, each stimuli image pair timer period is recorded by the treatment operations module, whereafter the stimuli image pair are removed from the display of the patient device, wherein the stimuli image pairs are re-located from frame to frame where the on-screen display locations of the stimuli image pairs in the previous frame are different from the on-screen display locations of the stimuli image pairs being displayed by the patient device, the treatment operations module configured to receive an input response from the patient device, the input response related with one image of the previously displayed stimuli image pair, the treatment operations module configured to record the length of time it takes from removal of the stimuli image pair from the display of the patient device to the receipt of the input response using an image bias timer, the treatment operations module configured to record the on-screen display location of the input response on the display of the patient device and to analyze on-screen location accuracy of the input response, the treatment computer having a communication module configured to transmit the completed treatment data to a bias calculation module, the bias calculation module is configured to to perform treatment session data analysis using the treatment session data selected from display location of stimuli image pairs, input responses, input response latency, treatment session duration, the treatment computer having a reporting module, and the treatment computer operatively connected to secure file storage… saving said electronic pre-assessment patient profile to storage memory on a computer at a remote location to the patient computer, said patient computer having computer program code stored in memory and executable on a processor… a system having a means for displaying one or more sets of stimuli to a patient including a computer having one or more processors, a memory, a screen, and an input means, and 38. computer storage media comprising computer programming having executable code, wherein the executable code when executed on the one or processors displays the one or more sets of stimuli on a graphical user interface on the screen to the patient and the computer programming including an interactive computer program that queries the patient to interact with the screen after the one or more sets of stimuli is displayed and subsequently removed, and that is configured to receive a response from the patient on the input means.” In light of the disclosure, each of these elements appear to be referencing generic computing devices with conventional capabilities.
As for Applicant’s claimed “a display,” this element is described in instant specification paragraph 36 as follows: “generating, on a patient computer having a computer display screen and input means, an electronic pre-assessment patient profile by receiving a series of patient anxiety profile data inputs into an electronic form displayed on a graphical user interface displayed on the computer display screen, said electronic form having anxiety profile questions relating to feelings selected from fear, apprehension, and worry, and questions relating to physiological symptoms selected from heart palpitations, nausea, chest pain, shortness of breath, and headache.” These elements are also generic components of generic computers.
The Applicant’s claimed “an input device” is defined in paragraph 43, “one or more user input devices selected from a mouse, a keyboard, a stylus, touch screen, eye or head movement input, or voice command.” These are all conventional computing elements that form common inputs to generic computing devices.
Applicant’s claimed “memory” and “secure storage” are described in paragraphs 87-88, “Computer system 700 also includes a main memory706, such as a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to bus702 for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor704. Main memory706 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by processor704… Computer system 700 further includes a read only memory (ROM)708 or other static storage device coupled to bus702 for storing static information and instructions for processor704. A storage device710, such as a magnetic disk or optical disk, is provided and coupled to bus702 for storing information and instructions,” and in paragraph 91, “The term ‘storage media’ as used herein refers to any non-transitory media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operation in a specific fashion. Such storage media may comprise non-volatile media and/or volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as storage device710. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as main memory706. Common forms of storage media include, for example, a floppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, solid state drive, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic data storage medium, a CD-ROM, any other optical data storage medium, any physical medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, NVRAM, any other memory chip or cartridge.” These elements are conventional computing elements common in generic computing devices.
Each of the recited modules, “a pre-assessment module,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” and “a reporting module,” is interpreted from instant specification paragraph 23 (“a patient device connected to a remote treatment/assessment computer having modules for delivering image sets to the patient device, collecting timing and location data, calculating attention bias, generating reports, connecting to secure storage, and managing encrypted communications.”) and paragraph 157 (“The present invention may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof and may be implemented in a computer system or other processing system”) as being either hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software components of a computer.
Each of the above-mentioned elements are reasonably interpreted as being a generic computer or generic computer component, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 14-25 and 27 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 14-25 and 27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 3 and 26.
Therefore, 3 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on April 23, 2026 have been fully considered, as addressed below.
The Applicant respectfully argues that the claims require “Display of stimuli image pairs for a constrained duration (≤500 ms),” “Dynamic relocation of stimuli across frames,” “Controlled sequencing of fixation symbols and stimuli,” “Measurement of response latency tied to removal of displayed images,” and “Recording of spatial input location and accuracy on a display,” which “cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” Therefore, the applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to a mental process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. The MPEP directs examiners to “review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the instant case, the claimed invention is described as the concept of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder” being performed on a generic computer or computer environment. Furthermore, the claimed invention merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. For example, Applicant’s claimed “means for display” is described in instant specification paragraph 98 as including “human intervention, for example a therapist physically displaying the stimuli to the patient,” providing further evidence that the abstract concept can be performed manually by humans, and that the recited computers are merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
The Applicant further respectfully argues that “the system claims improve how a computer system: controls stimulus presentation timing, and captures interaction metrics (latency and spatial accuracy). Thus, the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation, not an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Controlling the stimulus presentation timing and capturing interaction metrics by the computer do not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Controlling timing of display presentations and capturing interaction metrics are conventional features of generic computing devices (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)).
With regard to improvements to any other technology or technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) cautions examiners that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself… is not an improvement in technology.” In the present case, the claimed invention only provides improvements to the abstract idea of “delivering a treatment session to reduce attention bias in a patient,” and does not improve upon technology or any technical field.
The Applicant also respectfully argues that the claimed system “Uses a patient device display to present stimuli under strict temporal constraints,” “Requires frame-to-frame relocation of stimuli, affecting how images are rendered,” “Measures response latency triggered by removal of displayed stimuli,” and “Captures input location relative to displayed coordinates,” and that “These elements impose meaningful limits and tie the system claim to a particular machine and technological process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the cited limitations tie the system claim to any particular machine and technological process. The claim limitations only recite usage on a general purpose computer, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Applicant respectfully argues that “the ordered combination of elements provides an inventive concept, including: Sub-500 millisecond controlled display of stimuli pairs,” “Dynamic spatial relocation across frames,” “Latency measurement triggered by stimulus removal,” “Simultaneous capture of spatial input accuracy,” and “Integration of these measurements into bias determination.” Applicant further respectfully argues that “These features are not generic computer functions. Rather, they define a specific configuration of modules and operations that improve the way computers: Present visual information,” “Capture timing-sensitive user input,” and “Process interaction data tied to display behavior.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to the argument provided above, none of these features provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Each of these claim elements are conventional capabilities of a generic computer. The Examiner can find no evidence that the claimed invention improves the way the computer itself presents visual information, captures user input, and processes interaction data. The claim limitations appear to use conventional means to present visual information, capture user input, and process interaction data.
The Applicant further respectfully argues, “The claimed system provides a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known components to achieve a new capability: computer-controlled attention bias modification through precise timing and spatial interaction measurement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed system recites the additional elements of “a treatment computer comprising one or more processors and memory,” “a patient device comprising a display and an input device,” and “a treatment provider device.” These devices are each determined to be generic computing devices, and the claims do not show any unconventional arrangement of these devices. None of these devices themselves are improved, and no improvements are made to the technology or the technical field, as elaborated upon above.
The Applicant also respectfully argues that the operations recited in the method claims are not mental processes because a human cannot “Accurately present multiple visual stimuli for sub-500 millisecond intervals in a repeatable and controlled manner, Precisely measure response latency tied to removal of displayed images, or Dynamically re-position stimuli across frames while synchronizing timing and input capture.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. The claimed invention is described as the concept of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder” being performed on a generic computer or computer environment.
Instant specification paragraph 98 states, “Additional examples of means for displaying sets of stimuli to a patient or user include, but are not limited to, human intervention, for example a therapist physically displaying the stimuli to the patient,” showing that there is a real world analog to the claimed method of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder,” and the claimed invention merely implements these steps using a generic computer.
For the above reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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 at 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
