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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed 12/16/2025.
Claims 1 and 16 were amended 12/16/2025.
Claims 31-38 were added 12/16/2025.
Claims 1-38 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-38 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.
Claims 1-38 are drawn to a method and a system which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite maintaining, a plurality of configuration files for an application to address a condition in a user, each of the plurality of configuration files comprising respective instructions including a respective logic to define placement of a respective set of content items associating with one or more elements, the respective logic comprising; (i) a plurality of states each state of the plurality of states identifying at least one of the respective set of content items associated with the one or more elements to prompt users to perform at least one of a plurality of activities via the application towards achieving a respective endpoint of a plurality of endpoints; and (ii) a plurality of events each event of the plurality of events identifying a respective interaction to be detected via the application to change from a first state to a second state among the plurality of states; determining, an endpoint of the plurality of endpoints associated with addressing the condition in the user using one or more parameters associated with the user; selecting, based on the endpoint for the user, from the plurality of configuration files, a configuration file comprising instructions including a logic to define placement of a set of content items associated with the one or more elements for an activity of the plurality of activities to be performed by the user; compiling, the instructions of the configuration file and providing, the configuration file to the application to display at least one content item of the set of content items, display a selectable element associated with the at least one content item displayed.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that “the framework may provide for daily activity engagement to the user to take advantage of the application on their personal mobile devices to increase engagement and likelihood of therapeutic efficacy ” and “a clinician may compose a script to form a suite of configuration files for providing a digital therapeutics” (see: specification paragraph 6 and 57-58). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address, “[b]y providing the configuration files in this manner, the application may be customized upon request and may provide a greater range of user experiences to the user to meet different endpoints, thereby improving the HCI between the user and the application.” (see: specification paragraph 11). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “computing system”, “system”, “graphical user interface”, “one or more processors”, and “memory”, “event bus” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the calculating and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions that are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The independent claims further recite “updating, based on a transition from the first state to the second state and based on one or more interactions by the user monitored, the configuration file to define placement of the set of content items as one or more elements of the application” and “responsive to updating the configuration file, causing, placement of at least one of the set of content items corresponding to the second state associated with one or more elements corresponding to the endpoint” which are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and amount to insignificant post-solution activity concerning an insignificant application. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, these claimed additional elements are incidental to the performance of organizing content data on a generic graphical user interface using a generic computing system as outlined in the recitations above. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “compiling, by the computing system, the instructions of the configuration file”, “providing, by the computing system, the configuration file to the application” language is incidental to the instructions executed). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and extra-solution elements. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2B and
Paragraph 53, where “The user device 110 (sometimes herein referred to as a client, a client device, or an end user computing device) may be any computing device comprising one or more processors coupled with memory and software and capable of performing the various processes and tasks described herein. The user device 110 may be in communication with the application configuration service 105 and the database 115 via the network 120. The user device 110 may be a smartphone, other mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computing device ( e.g., smart watch, eyeglasses), or laptop computer. The user device 110 may be used to access the application 165. In some embodiments, the application 165 may be downloaded and installed on the user device 110 (e.g., via a digital distribution platform). In some embodiments, the application 165 may be a web application with resources accessible via the network 120.”
Paragraph 90, where “Referring now to FIG. 2C, depicted is a block diagram of a process 240 for handling configuration packages in the system 100 for selecting configuration files. The process 240 may include or correspond to the operations performed in the system 100 upon loading and running the routine logic 202 as defined in the package 228. Under the process 240, the application 165 ( or an application services of the application 165) may perform initialization operations, such as starting the execution of the behavior manager 175, the layout handler 180, the event bus 185, and the user interface 190, among others. The application 165 may run various logic and operations defined for the application 165 outside of the package 228 received from the application configuration service 105. The application 165 may retrieve, identify or otherwise receive the package 228 from the application configuration service 105.”
Paragraph 129, where” Various operations described herein can be implemented on computer systems. FIG. 20 shows a simplified block diagram of a representative server system 2000, client computer system 2014, and network 2026 usable to implement certain embodiments of the present disclosure. In various embodiments, server system 2000 or similar systems can implement services or servers described herein or portions thereof. Client computer system 2014 or similar systems can implement clients described herein. The system 100 described herein can be similar to the server system 2000. Server system 2000 can have a modular design that incorporates a number of modules 2002 (e.g., blades in a blade server embodiment); while two modules 2002 are shown, any number can be provided. Each module 2002 can include processing unit(s) 2004 and local storage 2006.”
Paragraph 130, where “Processing unit(s) 2004 can include a single processor, which can have one or more cores, or multiple processors. In some embodiments, processing unit(s) 2004 can include a general-purpose primary processor as well as one or more special-purpose co-processors such as graphics processors, digital signal processors, or the like.”
Paragraph 131, where “Local storage 2006 can include volatile storage media ( e.g., DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM, or the like) and/or non-volatile storage media (e.g., magnetic or optical disk, flash memory, or the like). Storage media incorporated in local storage 2006 can be fixed, removable, or upgradeable as desired. Local storage 2006 can be physically or logically divided into various subunits such as a system memory, a read-only memory (ROM), and a permanent storage device. The system memory can be a read-and-write memory device or a volatile read-and-write memory, such as dynamic random-access memory.”
Paragraph 95, where “The event bus 185 may correspond to an interface between the package 228 and the various components of the application 165, such as the behavior manager 175 and the layout handler 180, among others.”
The claims recite additional elements for extra-solution activity, as recited above, each of which amounts to mere post-solution activity concerning an insignificant application. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not indicate that the additional element(s) provide anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-38 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as they merely receive, determine, identify, store, and present data on the generic computing components as recited in the independent claims above.
Claims 12 and 27 recite “a finite state machine” which is generically recited in the specification paragraph 58 and does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended independent claims are similar to Example 40 claim 1 because performing an action when an endpoint associated with addressing the condition in a user is determined based on one or more parameters associated with the user. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 40 claim 1 is directed to a technological improvement of improved network performance. The filtering of the data improved the network and provided a practical application to overcome the abstract idea. In the current claimed invention, the filtering of data is achieved on generic computing components that do not have a technological improvement to overcome the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” as the claimed invention provides technical features. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technical features, as recited, are merely data that does not provide a practical application to the abstract idea. Specific data processed on generic computing components does not provide a technological improvement. The claimed invention is, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, directed to an abstract idea between a user and a clinician (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) and follows the subject matter eligibility analysis as shown above.
Applicant further argues that the amendments recite specific graphical user interface’s that improve human-computer interactions between the user and the application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The graphical user interface and the displaying of content items with a selectable element and the adjusting and updating of content items of the graphical user interface does not provide significantly more the abstract idea, as the functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. A generic GUI has a selectable element (i.e., cursor) and displays items which is well-known in the art. The display of data on a generic GUI does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Further, the configuration files are merely program instructions being compiled by the computing system (specification paragraph 57) to display content items with a generic graphical user interface. Graphical user interfaces display items and have a selectable element (i.e., a cursor) and is well-known in the art. The recitation of configuration files that are being updated and defining placement of data of a generic GUI are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed, as shown above.
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McClure (WO 2021/168078 A1) is similar to the claimed invention in that it teaches goal management of a user, however it does not teach a plurality of states relating to elements on a graphical user interface.
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 KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (EST).
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/K.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686