DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 20 February 2026.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 3-16, and 18-30 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 3-16, and 18-30 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-16, and 18-30 is/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. Claims not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Amended claim 1 recites the non-original limitation “wherein the first game does not include the self-control training exercise.”
Examiner notes that the limitation is interpreted as a negative limitation. Per MPEP 2173.05(i): “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. … The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. … ‘Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure.’ Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172).”
Examiner notes that the specification repeatedly states that “The second boost game includes a self-control training exercise” (e.g., [0004]). However, applicant’s identified support and the remainder of the originally filed disclosure do not appear to explicitly support the identified negative limitation. Thus the originally filed disclosure is reviewed for whether it inherently or implicitly conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed “wherein the first game does not include the self-control training exercise.”
Applicant’s remarks identify [0003], [0039], [0040], [0044], [0046], [0056], Fig. 9, and original Claims 2 and 17 as support for the amendments at large. [0056], Fig. 9, and claim 2 and 17 were reviewed but do not appear to be relevant to the matter at hand and are not expressly considered below.
[0039] Self-control training may be implemented in an electronic user interaction system involving exercises (for example, challenges or tasks) which activate, engage, or modulate processes including memory and attention or other neural circuits implicated in bottom-up or top-down operations such as visuospatial processing, motor control, sensation, planning, executive inhibition, reward-seeking behavior, and goal-directed behavior. A self-control training exercise may activate a perceptually-linked process (for example, a memory process, an attention process, an ecological assessment process, or a cognitive flexibility process). Alternatively, or in addition, a self-control training exercise may activate a choice-making process relating to, for example, the accumulation or disposition of rewards (whether hypothetical or real). Perceptually-linked tasks and choice-making tasks may be presented in isolation or in combination as part of a larger training session. A subset of self-control training exercises may recruit and reinforce cognitive perceptual processes relating to time such as tasks involving time perception, timing accuracy, and delay tolerance.
The disclosure at [0039] provides various features of a self-control exercise that may be present. However, this disclosure does not appear to either require or imply that the first cognitive game excludes the self-training exercise.
[0040] The delay of gratification paradigm and the shifting focus framework are examples of strategies for cognitive self-control training which can be implemented for long-term alteration of suppressed control and motivational circuits in substance use disorders with a significant potential for higher-order, self-efficacy benefits. Self-control training exercises and sessions may incorporate frameworks and paradigms which are projective, retrospective, or experiential in nature, and may comprise both continuous and asynchronous components. Cognitive load is a factor which may modulate acceptability and efficacy of training exercises. Cognitive loading reflects the instantaneous propensity to receive and store information, including the capacity for such information to result in task-specific learning and generic-cognitive encoding. In this construct, the physiologic and psychologic state of the individual may affect cognitive loading, and the presence of stressors (for example, cravings) may reduce available cognitive capacity in the working memory domain. In addition, in reciprocal fashion, relative cognitive load may be manifest in physiologic signs. Depending on the chosen framework, exercises may incorporate visual, auditory, or tactical (for example, haptic) components for task presentation and user interaction, and for which cue-induced or prompt-related user responses may indicate relative cognitive loading.
[0040] indicates the efficacy of training is reduced by cognitive load. For context, the first game “provides a first cognitive load” and the second game “provides a second cognitive load, wherein the second cognitive load is greater than the first cognitive load.” Thus in the context of the claim and the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the second game period with its higher cognitive load provides less effective training than the first game. This does not either require or imply that the first cognitive game excludes the self-training exercise.
[0044] One or more of the boost games are configured to provide low cognitive loads to avoid overloading a user. Boost games configured to provide low cognitive loads are sometimes referred to herein as “stage one boost games.” Stage one boost games are configured to target the cognitive processes of selective attention, physical motion, awareness, or a combination thereof. For example, FIGs. 1A through 1D are screen shots of a shapes game that provides a low cognitive load and targets the cognitive process of selective attention. The shapes game includes a tiling puzzle. In some implementations, the shapes game is a variation of the game Tangram. For example, the objective of the shapes game may be to find a correct placement for a set of polygons on a square gridded board. As a further example of a stage one boost game, FIGs. 2A through 2D are screen shots of a dots game that provides a low cognitive load and targets the cognitive process of selective attention. The dots game may include a spatial puzzle. For example, gameplay in the dots game may represent the connection of multiple pairs of points on a closed board, without intersections.
[0046] One or more of the boost games are configured to provide moderate cognitive loads to facilitate self-control training. Boost games configured to provide moderate cognitive loads are sometimes referred to herein as “stage two boost games.” Stage two boost games are configured to target the cognitive processes of working memory, procedural memory, ecological assessment, cognitive flexibility, choice-making, or a combination thereof. For example, FIGs. 3A through 3D are screen shots of a match game that provides a moderate cognitive load. In some implementations, the match game is a gamified version of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. For example, through trial and error, a user locates a paired match between a stimulus card and one of plurality of response cards. In some implementations, each trial of the match game includes four response cards, as illustrated in FIGs. 3C and 3D. The matching patterns may include, for example, color, shape, number, or a combination thereof. In some implementations, the matching patterns are randomly changed after the few trials. In some implementations, the match game provides bonus points for rapid and consecutive correct answers.
The disclosures of [0044] and [0046] describe “stage one boost games” and “stage two boost games”, which respectively correspond to the “first game” and “second game” of the claims. The disclosure of [0046] suggests that the “second game” “facilitate[s] self-control training” while the “first game” “avoid[s] overloading a user.” But this doesn’t require or imply that the “stage one boost game” does not include a self-control exercise. For example, the first game could merely have a less challenging version of the self-control training while avoiding overloading the user.
[0003] Self-control training is a behavioral model which may be applied to improve patient-directed recovery from substance use disorders and substance dependencies. Self-control training exercises may include, but are not limited to, experiential, procedural, and choice-making activities, and may be provided to a user in the form of games played on a smartphone, desktop computer, or other computing device. Self-control training exercises may include, for example, cognitive activities designed to activate, engage, or modulate processes including, for example, working memory, selective attention, procedural memory, inhibitory control, ecological assessment, and other neurological circuits implicated in cognitive flexibility. Given the abundant usage of smartphones, gamified self-control training exercises can be provided to nearly any user at any time. For example, gamified self-control training exercises can be provided to a user on their smartphone as a just in time intervention during a substance craving. The present disclosure provides, among other things, substance usage management with gamified cognitive activities imposing different cognitive loads. The gamified cognitive activities include self-control training exercises configured to increase, among other things, a user’s craving tolerance and impulse control capability.
Like [0039], the disclosure of [0003] describe possible features of a self-control exercise. However, it is noteworthy that this disclosure indicates that “Self-control training exercises may include, for example, cognitive activities designed to activate, engage, or modulate processes including … selective attention.” Referring back to [0044], the originally filed disclosure states that “Stage one boost games are configured to target the cognitive processes of selective attention… . For example, FIGs. 1A through 1D are screen shots of a shapes game that provides a low cognitive load and targets the cognitive process of selective attention.” In this way, the disclosures of [0003] in conjunction with [0044] expressly contemplate “stage one boost games” (corresponding to the “first game” of the claim) which do include self-control training exercises. Rather than indicating that the first game may exclude a self-control training exercise, these disclosure clearly indicate that the first game may include a self-control training exercise.
Because these disclosures 1) do not expressly support the negative limitation, 2) do not implicitly or inherently support the negative limitation, and 3) provide an embodiment contrary to the negative limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand these disclosures as supporting the identified negative limitation. The remainder of the originally filed disclosure similarly does not appear to support the identified negative limitation.
Because the claimed invention includes a non-original limitation which is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize applicant as possessing the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore the claim is rejected under the written description requirement. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
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, 3-16, and 18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, which is representative of claim 16, recites: a method for managing substance abuse, the method comprising:
receiving,
selecting,
displaying, to the user
selecting, cognitive processes selected from the group consisting of working memory, procedural memory, ecological assessment, cognitive flexibility, and choice making;
displaying, to the user
wherein the first time duration and the second time duration are determined based on the session length
wherein the first game does not include the self-control training exercise, and
wherein the first game is displayed to the user before the second game is displayed to the user.
The preceding recitations of the claims have had strikethrough marks applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations set forth a concept of providing substance abuse training games, which is both an example of managing personal behavior and an interaction between people. Therefore the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, and as such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a mobile computing device. Claim 16 recites a system comprising: a graphical user interface; one or more memory device for storing instructions; and one or more processing devices configured to execute the instructions. These additional elements are recited with a great deal of generality, and may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims further recite the additional element of a graphical interface of the mobile computing device which displays information. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to technology, does not require a particular device, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment involving user devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment involving user devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of a graphical interface of the mobile computing device which displays information. However, Shim (US 2007/0042823 A1) demonstrates (see at least [0005]) that mobile computing devices displaying information was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment involving user devices. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2-15 and 17-30 further describes the abstract idea set forth by the claims, but these claims continue to recite an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-29 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons equivalent to those explained above. Dependent claim 15 and 30 recite the additional element of machine learning models. However, at the level of generality claim, these additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing devices. This additional element, individually and as a combination with the previously identified additional element, does not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons equivalent to those explained above. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112 Rejections of claims 1-30: Applicant has amended the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. The rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-30: Applicant has amended the claims. For example, claim 1 has been amended to recite … “the first game does not include the self-control training exercise.” Neither Eatedali nor Merzenich teaches or suggest at least the limitations of claim 1 noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The argument that the prior art does not teach of make obvious a system where the first game does not include the self-control training exercise is persuasive. The rejections under 103 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-30: Claims 1-30, as amended, recite additional elements that apply or use the alleged judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is unclear which features are considered additional elements which effect a particular treatment. As explained in the current and prior rejections, the claims appear to only contain additional elements of a computing device and a user interface. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), “The treatment or prophylaxis limitation must impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception, and cannot be extra-solution activity or a field-of-use.” Here, the high level use of a computer to implement the abstract idea does not appear to qualify as a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Mcdermott et al. (US 2018/0286272 A1) specifically describes a cognitive skill training system that uses games which increase in difficulty to train users’ cognitive abilities.
Kanayama (US 2022/0168614 A1) describes a system where a first game is associated with training user skills and a second game is not associated with training user skills, in order to allow a user to rest.
Conclusion
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-03-06