DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on September 30, 2025 for the patent application 18/105,111 originally filed on February 2, 2023. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 are amended. Claims 1 and 2 are canceled. Claims 3-14 remain pending. The first office action of September 30, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed September 30, 2025 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Claims 3 and 4 were amended to correct minor informalities. Accordingly, the outstanding objections to the claims are withdrawn.
The Applicant has amended the claims to obviate identified antecedent basis issues. Therefore, the outstanding 35 USC 112, second paragraph rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 101, for reasons set forth below.
Claims 1 and 2 were rejected under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, respectively. These claims were canceled. Therefore, all outstanding rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations are:
“input means” in claims 4, 10, and 12.
“a means for displaying” in claim 10.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 claim 3.
“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 § 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 3-14 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), claim 4 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 10 is directed to “a process” (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 “treating patients with an anxiety disorder,” 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 exemplary limitations:
of claim 3, “present diagnostic survey questions… receives patient inputs… and generates a pre-assessment patient profile… analyzes the pre-assessment patient profile and… selects one or more treatment sessions by accessing stored treatment sessions … sends a pre-assessment profile completion notification… controls 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… and then displaying a fixation symbol for a specific time period… and then after displaying the fixation symbol, a treatment session consisting of a set of multiple stimuli image pairs is delivered… each of the stimuli image pairs are displayed for no more than 500 ms, each stimuli image pair timer period is recorded… whereafter the stimuli image pair are removed… 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… receives an input response… the input response related with one image of the previously displayed stimuli image pair… records the length of time it takes from removal of the stimuli image pair… to the receipt of the input response using an image bias timer… records the on-screen display location of the input response… and analyzes on-screen location accuracy of the input response… transmits the completed treatment data… performs 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.”
of claim 4, “generating… [a] pre-assessment patient profile by receiving a series of patient anxiety profile data inputs into… [a] form… said… 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;
saving said… pre-assessment patient profile… at a remote location…
providing… a remotely stored treatment session from a plurality of remotely stored treatment sessions, wherein the remotely stored treatment session is selected… at the remote location… analyzing the pre-assessment patient profile… and providing the treatment session…
wherein the treatment session comprises the steps in order of
(i) displaying patient instructions…
(ii) displaying a fixation symbol on a central part of the computer display screen for 500 ms or less,
(iii) displaying a set of stimuli images… for a display period of 500 ms or less, said stimuli images selected from negative-neutral stimuli images and neutral-neutral stimuli images, said negative-neutral stimuli images comprising a negative stimuli image displayed at a first location on the computer display screen adjacent to a neutral stimuli image displayed at a second location on the computer display screen, and said neutral-neutral stimuli images comprising the neutral stimuli image displayed at the first location on the computer display screen adjacent to the neutral stimuli image displayed at the second location on the computer display screen,
(iv) displaying a second symbol at the first or second location on the computer display screen for 500 ms or less,
(v) displaying instructions… directing the patient to provide input on the whether the second symbol is displayed at the first or second location,
(vi) receiving patient input on the second symbol location,
(vii) measuring response latencies between displaying the second symbol and receiving patient input, and saving… response latencies, patient input, location of the second symbol, and type of stimuli images - negative-neutral stimuli images or neutral-neutral stimuli images,
(viii) repeating steps (ii)-(vii) for a length of time selected from a pre-determined length of time, a length of about 20 minutes, and a length of time determined from an analysis of patient responses, wherein the stimuli images from one iteration to the next are different ;
displaying the treatment session… wherein the display period is varied based on the response latencies ;
transmitting… the response latencies, the patient input, the location of the second symbol, the type of stimuli images - negative-neutral stimuli images or neutral-neutral stimuli images, and the length of time, and… calculating an anxiety bias score by subtracting response latencies for negative-neutral stimuli images where the location of the second symbol followed the neutral stimuli image (L-neg), from response latencies for neutral-neutral stimuli images (L-neu), and saving the anxiety bias score.”
of claim 10, “displaying one or more sets of stimuli to a patient…
display[ing] the one or more sets of stimuli… to the patient and
…quer[ying] the patient to interact with the screen after the one or more sets of stimuli is displayed and subsequently removed, and that receives a response from the patient on the input means, the one or more sets of stimuli comprising images or words,
displaying a first set of stimuli from the one or more sets of stimuli to the patient…
receiving a set of first responses… from the patient to the first set of stimuli;
recording the set of first responses from the patient… and storing the set of first responses for analysis;
displaying a second set of stimuli from the one or more sets of stimuli to the patient, the second set of stimuli prompted by the first set of responses to the first set of stimuli,
receiving a second set of responses… from the patient to the second set of stimuli;
recording the second set of responses from the patient… and storing the second set of responses for analysis;
wherein the one or more sets of stimuli include negative stimuli images or words and neutral stimuli images or words,
wherein each response of the first set of response and the second set of responses is limited to one of two choices given to the patient;
wherein displaying the one or more sets of stimuli comprises first presenting… a fixation symbol along with an instruction to the patient to focus on the fixation symbol, which subsequently disappears and is replaced by a negative stimuli image or word and a neutral stimuli image or word from the first set of stimuli, the negative stimuli image or word and a neutral stimuli image or word simultaneously displayed around the fixation symbol, along with an instruction to the patient to focus on one of the negative stimuli image or word and a neutral stimuli image or word,
wherein the negative stimuli image or word and a neutral stimuli image or word then simultaneously disappear after a display period of 500 milliseconds or less,
wherein a probe symbol is displayed where one of the negative stimuli image or word and a neutral stimuli image or word was previously positioned…
wherein the probe symbol includes an instruction to the patient to enter a response… in a specific manner, the probe symbol remaining… until the patient enters a response,
wherein recording includes the patient response and a response latency, said response latency comprising the amount of time between the display of the probe symbol and the entry of the response by the patient, each said response is one of the first set of responses or the second set of responses , wherein the display period is varied based on the response latency;
wherein the probe symbol comprises faces selected from a standardized set of emotional expressions,
wherein the standardized set includes faces of eight individuals comprising four male faces and four female faces, the faces of the eight individuals including negative expressions and neutral expressions;
analyzing the first set of responses and the second set of responses… by comparing the response latency of each response of the first set of response and the response latency of each response of the second set of responses;
and calculating a bias score by subtracting response latencies where the probe symbol was a negative expression from response latencies where the probe symbol was a neutral expression;
wherein a positive bias score generates a report that the patient has difficulty disengaging attention from a negative stimuli image or word,
wherein a negative bias score generates a report that the patient has reduced anxiety.”
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 computer,” “a patient device,” “a treatment computer,” “a patient computer,” “a treatment provider device,” “a processor,” “a screen,” “a graphical user interface,” “a display,” “a computer display screen,” “a means for the patient to interact with the screen,” “input means,” “one or more user input devices,” “a mouse,” “a keyboard,” “a stylus,” “touch screen,” “eye or head movement input,” “voice command,” “means for display,” “a secure system memory,” “a database,” “a connected database,” “secure file storage,” “storage memory,” “memory,” “computer storage media,” “computer memory,” “a computer program product,” “a pre-assessment module,” “a pre-assessment instrument,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” “a reporting module,” “computer programming,” “an interactive computer program” 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 “treating patients with an anxiety disorder” 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 computer,” “a patient device,” “a treatment computer,” “a patient computer,” “a treatment provider device,” “a processor,” “a screen,” “a graphical user interface,” “a display,” “a computer display screen,” “a means for the patient to interact with the screen,” “input means,” “one or more user input devices,” “a mouse,” “a keyboard,” “a stylus,” “touch screen,” “eye or head movement input,” “voice command,” “means for display,” “a secure system memory,” “a database,” “a connected database,” “secure file storage,” “storage memory,” “memory,” “computer storage media,” “computer memory,” “a computer program product,” “a pre-assessment module,” “a pre-assessment instrument,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” “a reporting module,” “computer programming,” “an interactive computer program” 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 computer,” “a patient device,” “a treatment computer,” “a patient computer,” “a treatment provider device,” and “a processor” 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 screen,” “a graphical user interface,” “a display,” and “a computer display screen,” these elements are 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 “a means for the patient to interact with the screen,” “input means,” “one or more user input devices,” “a mouse,” “a keyboard,” “a stylus,” “touch screen,” “eye or head movement input,” and “voice command” are 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.
Additionally, Applicant’s claimed “means for display” is described in paragraph 98 as including “human intervention, for example a therapist physically displaying the stimuli to the patient.”
Applicant’s claimed “a secure system memory,” “a database,” “a connected database,” “secure file storage,” “storage memory,” “memory,” “computer storage media,” and “computer memory” 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.
The Applicant’s claimed “a computer program product,” “a pre-assessment module,” “a pre-assessment instrument,” “a patient profile module,” “a treatment selection module,” “a communication module,” “a treatment operations module,” “a bias calculation module,” “a reporting module,” “computer programming,” “an interactive computer program” are not explicitly defined in the specification as being anything other than program instructions for controlling conventional computers or computer components.
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 5-9 and 11-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 5-9 and 11-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 4 and 10.
Therefore, claims 3-14 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 September 30, 2025 have been fully considered, as addressed below.
The Applicant respectfully requests that “Claim limitations that use the term ‘means’ are intended to be interpreted under §112, sixth. Claim limitations that do not use the word ‘means’ are not intended to be interpreted under §112, sixth.”
However, the Examiner notes that each reference to a “module” in claim 3 does not recite sufficient structure to ascertain what the claim element is. Therefore, the Examiner must interpret the modules under 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph in order to unambiguously interpret the claim limitations. As elaborated upon above, 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.
The Applicant respectfully argues, “the claims do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the courts to be abstract, such as a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing human activity, an idea itself (standing alone), or a mathematical relationship. Do the claims recite a fundamental economic practice? No. Do the claims recite a method of organizing human activity? No. Do the claims recite solely an idea or a mathematical relationship? No. Accordingly, the claimed steps do not recite an abstract idea. Nor do they implicate any other judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is not directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claims are eligible. The Office has not provided a reasoned analysis suggesting otherwise. The Courts are clear under Alice and Enfish that mere conclusions about §101 eligibility are insufficient, as are using reductionism to ignore the actual claim terms.” Applicant then lists each of the additional elements found in the claims as evidence that the claims are not abstract.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Examiner maintains that the claims recite the abstract idea of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because they describe a process of a human using a generic computer as a tool to direct the performance of the abstract idea of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder.” For instance, instant specification paragraph 98 states that the “means for display” might be a therapist physically displaying stimuli to the patient.
The claims are further determined to recite mental processes because they describe performing the abstract idea of “treating patients with an anxiety disorder” on a generic computer or computer environment. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) 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, and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Furthermore, Applicant’s claimed “means for display” is described in 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 has not shown that any of the additional elements is not a generic computer or computer component.
The Applicant also respectfully argues, “Applicant's claimed invention is not using a generic computer to monopolize an abstract idea. Applicant is not simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Rather, applicant's claimed invention includes and requires many specifically designed components for solving the problem of generating a system for tailoring, tracking, displaying and adapting a social disorder treatment based on (adaptive) patient inputs and treatment provider inputs. The specific hardware used, the specific programming used to achieve the multitude of steps, the timing and placement of the images, the output and analysis of the results, and the use of the results to tailor the subsequent process steps, clearly recite claims that are compliant under 35 USC §101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory and provide no explanation as to why the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. For example, what “specific hardware” is not generic? What “specific programming” is unconventional? The Applicant has listed each of the additional elements found in the claims, but has not provided any evidence that any of the additional elements provides “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.05 for examples of additional claim elements that may represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The Applicant further respectfully argues, “The Examiner fails to sufficiently support the finding that the claims do not add significantly more to the alleged judicial exception. Namely, the Examiner concludes the claims do not include ‘any additional elements that amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception’ but fails to provide sufficient factual support… The Examiner pastes on pages 14-16 of the Office Action the text of the claims, and then concludes, without evidence of reasoning, that these are all parts of generic computing devices with conventional capabilities. Really?”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the 35 USC 101 rejection supra, the Examiner lists each additional element found in the claims, then provides the location where it is described in the disclosure, showing that each of the additional elements is either a generic computer or generic computing component. In the disclosure of each additional element, the Examiner could find no evidence that the additional element represents anything “significantly more” than generic computing equipment used in a conventional manner. The Applicant has not challenged any individual claimed element as being unconventional or not a generic computer or component.
The Applicant also respectfully argues, “Exactly how is a pre-assessment module with a pre-assessment instrument generic and conventional? Is there documentary evidence in a prior art document for this? Or is the Office engaging in cut-and-paste speculation using the applicant's own specification for wording not found elsewhere? And what about a treatment selection module connected to a database of stored treatment sessions that uses a treatment operations module to control delivery of fixation and stimuli image pairs? Where would one buy a generic computing device with conventional capabilities that included what the applicant is claiming?
And where can one find a generic computing device with conventional capabilities that includes an App or programming for (xii) 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 receives 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 records 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 records the on-screen display location of the input response on the display of the patient device and analyzes on-screen location accuracy of the input response, and
(xiii) a bias calculation module, that receives completed treatment data and performs treatment session data analysis using the treatment session data selected from display location of stimuli image pairs, input responses, input response latency, and treatment session duration?”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant points to the “pre-assessment module,” “pre-assessment instrument,” “treatment selection module,” “database of stored treatment sessions,” “treatment operations module,” “fixation and stimuli image pairs,” “treatment session,” and “bias calculation module” as examples of additional elements in the claims that are not generic or conventional. However, as discussed above, each of the “module” elements are only vaguely described in the specification as hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software performed by a computer. The “pre-assessment instrument” is merely a survey “delivered from the server to the patient device” (see specification paragraph 81). The “database of stored treatment sessions” is a conventional database storing “treatment sessions,” which are understood to be data. The “fixation and stimuli image pairs” are also understood to be data. The Examiner can find no evidence that any of these “additional elements” are unconventional or not generic. Again, Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.05 for examples of additional claim elements that may represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
For the above reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715