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 .
Claims 1 and 40 have been amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 6, 9-12, 18-21, 23-25, 27-29, 41-42 and 43-765 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 are drawn to a system for implementing intervention treatment regimens for a population of subjects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 40 is drawn to a non-transitory medium (Examiner notes that the storage medium is executed on a server device.) for implementing intervention treatment regimens for a population of subjects which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claim 1 of Group I (1, 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26) recites a computer system comprising:
one or more processing units (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it);
and a memory coupled to at least one processing unit of the one or more processing units, the memory storing at least one program for execution by the at least one processing unit, the at least one program comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the computer system to (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it and MPEP § 2106.05 (g), insignificant extra solution activity):
for each respective subject in a plurality of subjects, wherein the plurality of subjects comprises more than 100 subjects:
(A) receiving, in electronic form at the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a respective first alert from a respective client device associated with a respective subject indicating that the respective subject has initiated a corresponding method being initiated without any contact between the respective subject and a therapist or coach, the corresponding method comprising:
receiving, in electronic form at the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), a corresponding first plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided a first questionnaire at a respective first time, wherein:
each respective response in the corresponding first plurality of responses is associated with a corresponding value, and
the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises:
a corresponding first set of responses associated with an ecological mood of the respective subject,
a corresponding second set of responses indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits a depressive disorder or an anxiety disorder,
a corresponding third set of responses indicative of a stress reaction of the respective subject,
a corresponding fourth set of responses signifying a self-reported resilience of the respective subject,
a corresponding fifth set of responses indicative of a general wellness state of the respective subject,
a corresponding sixth set of responses indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits an alcohol disorder, and
a corresponding seventh set of responses that characterizes a state of spirituality of the respective subject;
applying, at the respective client device or the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), the corresponding first plurality of responses to a first set of models to determine a baseline resilience of the respective subject at the respective first time, wherein the first set of models comprises a first cohort-based questionnaire response normalization model configured to normalize the corresponding first plurality of responses relative to stored questionnaire response data of the plurality of subjects;
generating, for the respective subject, a corresponding interactive digital journal associated with the respective subject, the corresponding interactive journal wherein the corresponding interactive digital journal is presented through a user interface on a touch- sensitive display of the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), the user interface comprising a first user interface screen including a first affordance region representing the first questionnaire or the second questionnaire and a second user interface screen including a second affordance region representing the objective feedback:
providing the respective subject access to a corresponding intervention treatment regimen designed to improve the resilience of the respective subject wherein the corresponding intervention treatment regimen for the respective subject is self-guided by the respective subject, and
being configured to chart a progress of the respective subject through the corresponding intervention treatment regimen relative to the baseline resilience by capturing:
a corresponding subjective narration, in electronic form at the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), describing exposure to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, and
a corresponding objective feedback based on a corresponding second plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided, in electronic form (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a second questionnaire during the exposure to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, wherein:
the second questionnaire includes some or all of a plurality of questions from the first questionnaire and the objective feedback is generated by:
applying the second plurality of responses to the first set of models to determine a post-exposure resilience; and
comparing the post-exposure resilience to the baseline resilience to determine a graphical resilience change metric, and
wherein the at least one program comprises a feedback module configured to validate the corresponding objective feedback by determining that the objective feedback satisfies a threshold scientific accuracy or precision before the objective feedback is displayed by the respective client device;
exposing the respective subject to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen, wherein the corresponding intervention treatment regimen comprises a corresponding plurality of curricula,
each respective curriculum in the corresponding plurality of curricula:
is associated with a unique factorization of a respective resilience of the respective subject into a plurality of distinct resilience components determined by the first set of models and, comprises
(i) a unique compilation of digital media configured to improve an ability of the respective subject associated with the unique factorization of the respective resilience of the respective subject, and
(ii) a corresponding set of instructions for the respective subject to interact with reality, wherein the corresponding plurality of curricula comprises:
a first curriculum associated with a cognitive appraisal of the respective subject,
a second curriculum associated with confronting a first locus of fear experienced by the respective subject,
a third curriculum associated with an environmental reality system determined, at least in part, by the respective subject,
a fourth curriculum associated with a plurality of biological factors of the respective subject;
a fifth curriculum associated with confronting a second locus of purpose of the respective subject;
wherein exposing the respective subject to the corresponding intervention treatment regimen comprising: selecting at least one curriculum from the corresponding plurality of curricula based on at least one of the distinct resilience components determined by the first set of models, and causing the user interface on the touch-sensitive display of the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it) to display the corresponding objective feedback and at least one selected curriculum in the corresponding plurality of curricula;
and
(B) update a respective user profile associated with the respective subject, in response to the first alert;
(C) receive, in electronic form at the computer system (MPEP § 2106.05 (f), apply it), a respective second alert from the respective client device associated with the respective subject indicating that the respective subject has concluded the corresponding method and, in response to the respective second alert:
determine that the respective subject has completed at least one curriculum in the corresponding plurality of curricula; and
(D) update the respective user profile associated with the respective subject in response to the determination of curriculum completion to store a curriculum completion status and the objective feedback generated by the first set of models (§ 2106.05 (g), insignificant extra solution activity), thereby implementing the corresponding intervention treatment regimen for the respective subject; and
(E) display, on the touch-sensitive display of the respective client device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), a progress of the respective subject when exposed to a corresponding intervention treatment regimen for the respective subject.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Independent claim 40 recites substantially the same abstract idea and additional elements found in claim 1.
Dependent Claims 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 include other limitations, for example Claim 3 recites wherein the corresponding value is in a range of from 0 to 4, from 0 to 5, or from 0 to 10, Claim 4 recites wherein the corresponding value is categorical, Claim 5 recites wherein the first questionnaire comprises a first set of questions indicative of whether the respective subject exhibits a depressive indicator, Claim 7 recites wherein the first questionnaire comprises a second set of questions configured to identify a generalized anxiety disorder exhibited by the respective subject, Claim 8 recites wherein the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises an eighth set of responses associated with a demographic status of the respective subject, Claim 13 recites wherein the applying the corresponding first plurality of responses to the first set of models comprises applying each respective response in the corresponding first plurality of responses to a corresponding model in the first set of models, Claim 14 recites wherein the first set of models comprises a second Likert scale model, Claim 15 recites wherein the baseline resilience of the respective subject comprises an indication of an adverse condition affecting the respective subject, Claim 16 recites wherein the corresponding set of instructions for the respective subject to interact with reality comprises a first instruction for the respective subject to input a respective subjective narration by the respective subject, Claim 17 recites wherein the corresponding subjective narration by the respective subject of the exposure to the intervention treatment regimen comprises a duration of a disruptive event producing adversity, a severity of the disruptive event producing adversity, an outcome of disruptive event producing adversity, or a combination thereof, Claim 22 recites wherein the charting the progress of the respective subject further comprises providing a graphical chart comprising: a first axis by a first segmentation based on a period of time, a second axis by a second segmentation based on a respective set of responses in the corresponding first plurality of responses comprises provided by the respective subject, and one or more data plots, wherein each respective data plot in the one or more data plots (i) represents a corresponding set of responses in a corresponding second plurality of responses of the respective subject when provided the second questionnaire during the period of time, and (ii) populates a unique location within an area formed by the first axis and the second axis, and Claim 26 recites wherein the first curriculum associated with the cognitive appraisal of the respective subject is configured in accordance with a respective life-stage of the respective subject, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 40.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of one or more processing units and a memory coupled to at least one processing unit of the one or more processing units, client device, touch-screen display, user interface, and computer system, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0011], [0044-0045], [0050] and [0151] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Examiner notes that the dependent claims do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims.
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0011], [0044] and [0050] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. computer system, processor, memory, client device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. storing data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare management);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of program data on a database and/or electronic memory.
Dependent Claims 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22 and 26 include other limitations, but they do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 40 does not have any dependent claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 13-17, 22, 26 and 40 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant argues that the subject matter eligibility rejection should be withdrawn.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that claims do not recite a judicial exception because they do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks, page 12). Specifically, Applicant asserts that “the independent claims do not recite or relate to certain economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, such social activities, teaching, or following rules or instructions” and that “the Office Action’s characterization is untethered to the claim language (Remarks, page 13).” Examiner maintains that the instant claim recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as the claims use appraisals of subjects and feedback from subjects to monitor subjects, track their progress and update their treatment regimens. The subject matter eligibility rejection uses the exact claim language, so it is unclear why Applicant is arguing that the rejection is “untethered from the claim language.”
Applicant asserts that paragraph [0007] of the specification describes “the recited machine-bound arrangement are a technical solution to a data-quantification problem in which existing digital tools ‘fail to take into account for all of the factors that contribute to resilience[,]’ and ‘quantify such factors or otherwise capitalize on them in an application to help improve resilience (Remarks, page 13).’” Examiner asserts that the claims do not solve a technical problem as being able to quantify resilience is abstract. Furthermore, even if the problem to be solved by the invention was technical, there is not a technical solution that results from the claimed invention. The computer itself is not improved as a result of the claimed invention.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the “alleged judicial exception is applied through a particular client-device user interface that is integral to the claim (Remarks, page 14).” The client device is a mobile phone or a tablet per the instant specification [0044-0046] and [0151]. There is no improvement to the interface displayed on the client device as a result of the claim invention as the interface is simply used to collect data (questions and other inputs), analyze that data and display the results of the analysis. Again, there is not a technical challenge presented by the claimed invention. The improvement, if any, is to the abstract idea itself.
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states limitations that the courts have found indicative of an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The additional elements in the amended claims do not rise the level of a practical application. The additional elements, both alone or in combination, are not improved as a result of the claimed invention.
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Specifically, in the instant case, the additional elements are either recited at an “apply it” level (meaning they are merely used to implement the recited abstract idea) or recite insignificant extra-solution activity as detailed in the above rejection.
Applicant, citing to Data Engine, asserts that the claims are eligible because they involve “a ‘[s]pecific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers’" MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citing Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (Remarks, page 14). Unlike the Data Engine case, there is not a technical problem to be solved.
Applicant argues portions of abstract idea result in a practical application. Applicant is reminded that the additional elements are considered in this step, and that the abstract idea cannot be used to integrate itself into a practical application.
Applicant, citing to the 2025 Desjardins memorandum, asserts that “the Office Action's characterization of the claims as merely using questionnaires and stored information to support mental health does not account for the specific client-device and software limitations now recited in amended claim 1 (Remarks, page 15).” The rejection has been updated to reflect the amendments. Unlike Desjardins, the instant application does not result in an improvement that is technical in nature.
Applicant asserts that the “feedback-module validation is an additional element that meaningfully limits display of objective feedback (Remarks, page 15).” This is not an additional element as it is part of the abstract idea itself, and therefore, cannot result in a practical application of the abstract idea.
Applicant states that “claim 1 recites that the objective feedback is configured to induce behavioral change and is displayed through the same client-device interface used to present the selected curriculum, unvalidated feedback should not be passed directly to the user-facing intervention,” and that the claims “solve[] this problem by requiring a feedback module to validate the objective feedback against a threshold scientific accuracy or precision before the client device displays it (Remarks, page 16).” This further supports the Examiner’s position that the claims are directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity and draws attention to the fact that the claimed invention is not solving a technical problem with a technical solution.
Applicant further asserts that the “model output is used to select and display curriculum content through the client-device interface (Remarks, page 16)” and that “claim 1 uses the distinct resilience components determined by the first set of models to select at least one curriculum, and then causes the user interface on the touch-sensitive display of the client device to display the corresponding objective feedback and the selected curriculum (Remarks, page 17).” The selection of the curriculum is considered part of the abstract idea. The client device is either a mobile phone or tablet per the instant specification [0044-0046] and [0151], and therefore is considered as being recited at an “apply it” level as it is a generic computing device.
Applicant asserts that the “self-guided intervention-regimen limitations further support practical application” because “the alleged questionnaire/model analysis is used to carry out a self-guided intervention treatment regimen, not merely to provide mental-health information (Remarks, page 17).” Examiner maintains that the self-guided intervention limitations are part of the abstract idea, and therefore, are not considered as additional elements. As they are not considered additional elements, they are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) states: Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B.
The additional elements do not result in a practical application.
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 applies the alleged questionnaire/model analysis in carrying out a specific intervention treatment regimen,” citing to the particular treatment or prophylaxis consideration found in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(2). First, this is questionnaire/model analysis and recommending an intervention is considered part of the abstract idea, so there is no analysis required for Step 2A, Prong Two as it is not an additional element. Examiner reiterates that MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) states that “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” Second, there is no treatment administered in the claimed invention. While an intervention treatment regimen may be displayed as a suggestion, there is not a treatment administered. Third, even if a treatment was administered, it is not particular as required by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2), so it would still not result in a practical application.
Step 2B
Applicant “submits that the claimed invention provides an arrangement of additional elements resulting in an improvement in validating the corresponding objective feedback that satisfies the threshold scientific accuracy or precision before the corresponding objective feedback is displayed, displaying the corresponding objective feedback and the at least one curriculum selected from the corresponding plurality of curricula, the first and select alert- based processes between the computer system and the respective client device, determining that the user has completed at least one curriculum based on the predefined curriculum criteria, and updating the respective user profile in a time and computationally efficient manner (Remarks, page 19).” Other than the computer system and client device, all of this is considered part of the abstract idea. Similar to Prong Two above, Step 2B requires “[e]valuating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). The computing system and client device are not improved as a result of the claimed invention, and therefore, both alone or in combination (including with the other additional elements), do not rise to the level of significantly more.
Applicant states that “the specification describes that the claimed invention solves the technical problem of accounting for all of the factors that contribute to resilience and quantifying such factors or otherwise capitalize on them in an application to help improve resilience by providing a technical solution of validation of the corresponding objective feedback provides a gating operation that conditions display on the threshold scientific accuracy or precision before the objective feedback is displayed by the respective client device, which is a specific technical control process over what is presented. See specification as originally filed at, for example, paragraphs [0007 and [00229]-[00230] (Remarks, page 19).” This is not technical in nature. There is neither a technical problem nor is there a technical solution. The improvement, if any, is to the abstract idea itself, which does not result in significantly more.
Applicant asserts that for “at least the reasons stated in BASCOM, the claimed invention is patent eligible because the arrangement of elements is recited in a specific manner that represents a technical improvement over systems that are configured to process population- scale data sets with high dimensionality and transmit feedback in an unrestricted manner (Remarks, page 19).” It is unclear how this argument relates to the instant claims, and therefore is not persuasive.
Lastly, Applicant wrongly asserts that “the claimed invention amounts to an ‘inventive concept’ because it is not taught or suggested by the relevant art (Remarks, page 19).”
MPEP § 2106.05(I) states the following:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973.
In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.").
Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
