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 Accounting
Applicant' s arguments, filed 01/21/2026, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 01/21/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
The Korean Office Action issued on 08/06/2025 has not been considered as no translation of this document has been provided by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “one or more processors configured to receive the VR implementation data and to derive classification values according to ADHD-RS by: calculating scores for evaluation criteria… calculating, for each data value in the VR implementation data, a percentile relative to reference data stored in the VR implementation data storage memory… classifying the evaluation criteria…, converting the calculated mean percentiles… calculating scores for criteria on the ADHD-RS by using a softmax function… and creating a first ADHD rating scale including criteria on the ADHD-RS…” in lines 10-27. The specification only recites the use of a processor in pars. [0062] and [0069]. No other mention of a processor or computing unit is found in the specification. Par. [0062] teaches a processor that calculates a mean percentile based on each percentile for each observation criterion (VR-Z). This is interpreted to be analogous to the limitation of “calculating a mean percentile for each of the evaluation criteria based on the calculated percentiles” in lines 15-16 of claim 1. Par. [0069] teaches the processor calculating the ARS-Z by averaging at least one percentile for at least one evaluation criterion that matches each ARS number on the ADHD-RS. It is not clear if the recitations of Par. [0069] correspond to any limitations of claim 1. No further recitations of steps being carried out by a processor are found in the specification of the written description, and therefore there is insufficient support in the written description for “one or more processors configured to” perform the functional limitations of lines 10-15 and 17-27 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “in an initial state, the one or more processors set a first weight of 1… observing the subject” in lines 1-7. The recitations of pars. [0062] and [0069] of the written description are identified as the only recitations of the processors completing functional limitations. Neither par. [0062] or [0069] contains support for the limitations of claim 2 to be carried out by the one or more processors.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processors update the first weight and the second weight… evaluation criteria” in lines 1-8. The recitations of pars. [0062] and [0069] of the written description are identified as the only recitations of the processors completing functional limitations. Neither par. [0062] or [0069] contains support for the limitations of claim 3 to be carried out by the one or more processors.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processors: load the VR implementation data of the subject… ” in lines 1-13. The recitations of pars. [0062] and [0069] of the written description are identified as the only recitations of the processors completing functional limitations. Neither par. [0062] or [0069] contains support for the limitations of claim 6 to be carried out by the one or more processors.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the one or more processors: calculate scores for the criteria… hyperactivity/impulsivity domain” in lines 1-4. The recitations of pars. [0062] and [0069] of the written description are identified as the only recitations of the processors completing functional limitations. Neither par. [0062] or [0069] contains support for the limitations of claim 7 to be carried out by the one or more processors.
It is noted that all paragraph numbers of the instant application cited in this Office action are made in reference to the published application.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “creating a first ADHD rating scale including criteria on the ADHD-RS and corresponding scores based on at least the calculated scores for the evaluation criteria” in lines 26-27. It is unclear what a first ADHD rating scale comprises, and how, or if it differs from an ADHD-RS. Par. [0067-0075] and Figs. 6-8 are identified as having particular having details on the structure of an ADHD-rating scale. According to par. [0067], the ADHD-RS is “broadly classified into two large categories: Inattention (IA) and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (HI), and each large category has nine criteria”. Fig. 7 shows the scoring or these large categories as being percentiles of IA and HI. Further at least one evaluation criterion in the DSM-5 may be matched [to] at least one criterion on the ADHD-RS. However, par. [0067] also states that “at least one evaluation criterion may be matched for each ARS number constituting the ADHD-RS of DSM-5”. This recitation infers that the ADHD-RS comes from the DSM-5. These recitations do not provide any details on the structure of the first ADHD rating scale, and if it is the same or different from that of the ADHD-RS.
Par. [0082-0083] recites the method of calculating a value for each ADHD-RS criterion by using a softmax function. Further, it is stated that the structure of the conventional ADHD-RS includes providing four ratings: 0 indicates “Never or rarely”, 1 indicates “sometimes”, 2 indicates “often”, and 3 indicates “always or very often”, using integers alone. Par. [0083] also recites an advantage of using decimal points. It is unclear if there is a another ADHD-RS (such as the first ADHD rating scale) that contains a different rating scale from the four ratings as recited in par. [0083], and what the structure of this rating scale is. It appears that the decimals are used relative to the same four ratings. Therefore, it is unclear if the structure of the first ADHD rating scale is the same as or different from the ADHD-RS, and how it is created. It is therefore indefinite how this functional limitation is completed. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the first ADHD rating scale comprises any rating scale that is based on an ADHD-RS, but is different from the previously recited ADHD-RS.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “observation and evaluation criteria” in lines 5 and 7. It is unclear what the observation and evaluation criteria refers to. The observation criteria may refer to the “ADHD data stored in the ADHD rating scale storage memory that is input by an observer observing the subject” recited in claim 2, or another observation criteria. The evaluation criteria may refer to the evaluation criteria defined by a standardized clinical diagnostic framework recited in claim 1, or another evaluation criteria. Clarification is requested.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim recites “other observation and evaluation criteria” in lines 6 and 8. It is unclear what the “other observation and evaluation criteria” is referring to. There are no recited observation and evaluation criteria recited other than the “ADHD data stored in the ADHD rating scale storage memory that is input by an observer observing the subject” recited in claim 2 and the evaluation criteria defined by a standardized clinical diagnostic framework recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim recites “increasing the first weight and the second weight for observation and evaluation criteria having a higher correlation with each other than other observation and evaluation criteria, and decreasing the first weight and the second weight for observation and evaluation criteria having a lower correlation with each other than other observation and evaluation criteria” in lines 4-8. Based on the criteria being categories of evaluation, it is unclear how the updating of the weights can be based on the observation criteria and evaluation criteria having a higher or lower correlation. It is understood how numerical data such as the scores for the criteria may have higher or lower correlations that may change based on the ADHD-RS data input by the observer, but the data would not change the criteria itself. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “increasing the first weight and the second weight for data for the observation and evaluation criteria having a higher correlation with each other than data for other observation and evaluation criteria, and decreasing the first weight and the second weight for data for the observation and evaluation criteria having a lower correlation with each other than data for other observation and evaluation criteria”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “wherein the VR implementation data storage memory includes reference data gathered from… wherein the reference data is classified and stored based on the child’s age and gender.” In lines 1-4. It is unclear whether the recitations of the reference data are the same as the “reference VR implementation data” in lines 3-4 of claim 3, or a different set of reference data related to the VR implementation data. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the “reference data” of claim 5 is interpreted as the reference VR implementation data” of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the reference data” in line 5. It is unclear whether the recitations of the reference data are the same as the “reference VR implementation data” in lines 3-4 of claim 3, or a different set of reference data related to the VR implementation data. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the “reference data” of claim 6 is interpreted as the reference VR implementation data” of claim 3.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Step 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites system, including storage memories and one or more processors configured to calculate scores for evaluation criteria. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The functional limitations of calculating scores for evaluation criteria defined by a standardized clinical diagnostic framework, calculating a percentile relative to reference data, calculating mean percentiles for each domain, and calculating scores for criteria on the ADHD-RS by using a softmax function set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe mathematical calculations (a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mathematical Concept, which is an Abstract Idea.
The functional limitations of classifying the evaluation criteria into an inattention domain and a hyperactivity domain, converting the calculated mean percentiles to ADHD-RS scores using a clinical standard table, and creating a first ADHD rating scale set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites creating a first ADHD rating scale including criteria on the ADHD-RS and corresponding scores on at least the calculated scores for the evaluation criteria. This functional limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The creation of a first ADHD rating scale does not provide an improvement to the technological field, nor does the creation of a first ADHD rating scale effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change. Claim 1 recites a plurality of storage memories and one or more processors configured to perform the Abstract Ideas. It is noted that computer memories and processors are generic computer components and do not amount to a particular machine.
Step 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional limitations of a content storage memory storing content, a VR implementation storage memory storing data, an ADHD rating scale storage memory storing an ADHD rating scale, and one or more processors configured to perform the Abstract Idea. Each of the storage memories are generic computer memory parts storing previously collected data used to perform the Abstract Idea or parts not relied upon by the system. The additional elements are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements of the one or more processors, content storage memory, VR implementation storage memory, and ADHD rating scale storage memory do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The system recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the Abstract Idea. The recited one or more processors and memories comprise a generic computer system is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an Abstract Idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claim as they generally recite method steps pertaining to the data used in Abstract Idea and further details of Abstract Ideas. The calculating, classifying, converting, and creating limitations recited in the independent claim maintains a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims. Claims 2 and 3 are drawn to setting and updating weights, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 4-5 recite details pertaining to previously gathered data. Claims 6-7 further recite Abstract Ideas.
Examiner’s Note
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections of claims 1-7:
No prior art rejections are applicable based on prior art found in the search for amended claim 1. Any amendments to the claims to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 101 may require further search and consideration due to changes in the scope of the claim resulting from amendments, and could result in the application of prior art rejections in future actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered.
The amendments to claim 1 overcomes the objections of record.
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) of claims 1-7. However, the amendments to the claims necessitate new rejections for claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b).
The amendments to the claim do not invoke claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for any claim limitations.
The amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 is directed towards a concrete system that exposes a subject to VR content and gathers VR implementation data is not found persuasive. Claim 1 recites a system that uses correlations between data gathered by VR, but does not recite any elements capable of exposing a subject to VR content or gathering the data.
Applicant’s arguments that the sequence of steps recited in claim 1 is not a free-floating mathematical exercise is not found persuasive. The steps of amended claim 1 transforms the VR-derived behavioral/interaction data to yield an output of ADHD-RS criterion scores. However, the output of the ADHD-RS criterion scores are not tied to a particular application. The ADHD-RS criterion scores are not relied upon for use in a particular application, nor is a particular change or treatment effected based on the ADHD-RS criterion scores. Therefore, the functional limitations of claim 1 are not relied upon or applied to effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change.
Applicant’s assertion regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is acknowledged. This assertion is moot as it is based on amendments to the claims not entered at the time of the previous Office action. There are no prior art rejections for the newly presented limitations, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 101 above. Any subsequent amendments to the claims that change the scope of the prior art search and will require further search and consideration, and may result in the application of prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2011/0208439 by Teicher teaches a system that correlates virtual reality tasks to a metric that is normalized by average age and gender reference data.
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 NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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 Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights