DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 10 July 2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 10 July 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 16, and 18 is/are amended. Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1, 3-16, and 18-32 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 July 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, 3-16, and 18-32 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,
displaying, to the user
wherein the first time duration and the second time duration are determined based on the session length, 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 computing 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 computer 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 computer 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 3-15 and 17-32 further describe the abstract idea set forth by the independent claims, but these claims also recite an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-14, 17-29, 31, and 32 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application for the reasons identified above. As such, dependent claims 3-14, 17-29, 31, and 32 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons identified above. Dependent claim 15 and 30 recite the further additional element of machine learning models and an artificial intelligence engine respectively. However, at the level of generality claim, these additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. Thus this additional element, individually and as a combination with the previously identified additional element, does not integrate the abstract ideas of claims 15 and 30 into a practical application. As such, dependent claims 15 and 30 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, this additional element continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. Thus this additional element, individually and as a combination with the previously identified additional element, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claims 3-15 and 17-32 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 18-26, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eatedali et al. (US 2020/0155943 A1) in view of Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 16: Eatedali discloses a method for managing substance usage, the method comprising:
receiving, at a mobile computing device, a session length from a user (At step 204, using the user input module 125, the player provides the system with a time period for which the player would like to play the video game. See at least [0062]. Also: Users may access the system 100 via the client devices 110 that may include, but not be limited to, personal or desktop computers, laptops, Netbooks, handheld devices such as smartphones, tablets, and PDAs, gaming consoles and/or any other computing platform known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. See at least [0037]);
selecting, by the mobile computing device, a first game that provides a first cognitive load; selecting, by the mobile computing device, a second game that provides a second cognitive load (after receiving a player's selection of video game and based on the player's input, at step 208, the selection module 120 of the system applies the player-defined filters to the game scenes and selects scenes/content based on a plurality of criteria. See at least [0063]. Also: At step 350 selected content units are identified. In embodiments, as explained above, the content units are selected by the selection module 120 (shown in FIG. 1A) based on at least one user preference collected via the user input module 125 (shown in FIG. 1B). See at least [0070]. Also: See [0037]);
displaying, to the user via a graphical user interface of the mobile computing device, the first game for a first time duration; displaying, to the user via the graphical user interface, the second game for a second time duration (At step 354, the recompiled game is distributed to the user that had requested for the selected content. In another embodiment, where the game is streamed to the user, recompilation may not be required and each content unit may be sequentially arranged and streamed one after the other to the user. See at least [0070]).
wherein the first time duration and the second time duration are determined based on the session length (editing the selected one or more content units such that the collective time period is equal to or less than the player-defined time period. See at least [0007]); and
wherein the first game is displayed to the user before the second game is displayed to the user (At step 354, the recompiled game is distributed to the user that had requested for the selected content. In another embodiment, where the game is streamed to the user, recompilation may not be required and each content unit may be sequentially arranged and streamed one after the other to the user. See at least [0070]).
Eatedali does not appear to disclose wherein the second cognitive load is greater than the first cognitive load, wherein the second game includes a self-control training exercise configured to target one or more cognitive processes selected from the group consisting of working memory, procedural memory, ecological assessment, cognitive flexibility, and choice-making.
However, Merzenich teaches wherein the second cognitive load is greater than the first cognitive load (The games are structured to progress, for each game participant, from a low initial difficulty level that is easily achievable by the game participant toward an approximate asymptotic limit of performance of the game participant. See at least [0100]. Also: The first level of the Now or Later game presents images of non-alcoholic beverages. Subsequent levels depict images of alcoholic beverages. See at least [0520]), wherein the second game includes a self-control training exercise configured to target one or more cognitive processes selected from the group consisting of working memory, procedural memory, ecological assessment, cognitive flexibility, and choice-making (The training program 2 also includes games 4 that address various aspects of self-control and reward processing. Games 4 that strengthen self-control utilize techniques like meta-cognition (metric on how impulsive the user is in comparison to healthy peers who are more patient), speeding up inhibition processes, manipulation of attention, and control over one's internal state. Games 4 that renormalize reward values train the user to shift their attention towards rewards that healthy peers consider rewarding (like scenes of family, friends, life milestones). More advanced games 4 require the participant to track and manipulate the rewarding values to perform memory tasks or decision-making tasks. See at least [0470]. Also: Self-control games train the participant to suppress automatic processes like reading words, particularly if they relate to substances (Stroop task with trigger words), and attending to external stimuli (Mindfulness task). Participants are also trained to observe and alter their choice behavior to be more consistent with their healthy peers (Temporal choice game that provides self-awareness). See at least [0472]. Also: For example, in FIG. 62, Now or Later presents a challenge question 279 that asks the game participant to select between two monetary rewards, $80 in fourteen days (box 280), or $28 today (box 281). Based on the participant's choices across trials, Now or Later approximates how impulsive the participant is in regards to delaying gratification. See at least [0517]).
Eatedali provides a system which customizes a game length of multiple generic games to a player defined time period, which differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a specific self-control games of increasing difficulty. However, Merzenich demonstrates that the prior art already knew of self-control training exercise games of increasing difficulty. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily substituted Merzenich’s games into the system of Eatedali. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a substitution would have predictably resulted in a system which would present increasingly difficult self-control training exercise games within a player defined time period. As such the identified substitution, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Eatedali and the teachings of Merzenich.
Regarding Claim 4 and 19: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. As previously noted, Eatedali discloses selecting, by the mobile computing device, a third game that provides a third cognitive load; and displaying, to the user via the graphical user interface, the third game for a third time duration, wherein the third time duration is determined based on the session length (generating, in real-time, the video game tailored to a player-defined time period by: receiving the player-defined time period; selecting one or more content units of the video game based on the player-defined time period, wherein the one or more content units are defined by a collective time period; editing the selected one or more content units such that the collective time period is equal to or less than the player-defined time period; … and generating a tailored gameplay session comprising the edited one or more content units and selected one or more gear items for the player to play. See at least [0021]). As previously noted in combination with Eatedali, Merzenich teaches wherein the self-control training exercise is a first self-control training exercise and wherein the third cognitive load is greater than the second cognitive load, wherein the third game includes a second self-control training exercise (The games are structured to progress, for each game participant, from a low initial difficulty level that is easily achievable by the game participant toward an approximate asymptotic limit of performance of the game participant. See at least [0100]. Also: The first level of the Now or Later game presents images of non-alcoholic beverages. Subsequent levels depict images of alcoholic beverages. See at least [0520]. Also: The training program 2 also includes games 4 that address various aspects of self-control and reward processing. Games 4 that strengthen self-control utilize techniques like meta-cognition (metric on how impulsive the user is in comparison to healthy peers who are more patient), speeding up inhibition processes, manipulation of attention, and control over one's internal state. Games 4 that renormalize reward values train the user to shift their attention towards rewards that healthy peers consider rewarding (like scenes of family, friends, life milestones). More advanced games 4 require the participant to track and manipulate the rewarding values to perform memory tasks or decision-making tasks. See at least [0470]). The motivation to combine Eatedali and Merzenich is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 5 and 20: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Merzenich further teaches wherein the second self-control training exercise is configured to target one or more cognitive processes selected from the group consisting of time perception, timing accuracy, and delay tolerance (Some of the games in the program 100 deal with time perception and motor control. See at least [0356]). The motivation to combine Eatedali and Merzenich is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 6 and 21: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. As previously noted, Eatedali discloses further comprising: prior to selecting the second game selecting, by the mobile computing device, a third game that provides the first cognitive load, and displaying, to the user via the graphical user interface, the third game for a third time duration, wherein the third time duration is determined based on the session length (generating, in real-time, the video game tailored to a player-defined time period by: receiving the player-defined time period; selecting one or more content units of the video game based on the player-defined time period, wherein the one or more content units are defined by a collective time period; editing the selected one or more content units such that the collective time period is equal to or less than the player-defined time period; … and generating a tailored gameplay session comprising the edited one or more content units and selected one or more gear items for the player to play. See at least [0021]).
Regarding Claim 7 and 22: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. As previously noted, Eatedali discloses adjusting one or more parameters of the first game or the second game based on one or more attributes of the user (In embodiments, a user may be prompted to select one out of a predefined range of values, such as values ranging from a minimum of 1 player to an infinite number of players, or any increment therein, to define a number of opponents that the user would like to play with via the input box 160. Further, Input box 162 may, in an embodiment, provide a predefined range of values, ranging from ‘>1’ to ‘>5’, for example, or any increment therein, wherein each value defines a selectable skill level of opponents for gameplay. For each of the inputs 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, and 162, a user may select the option ‘any’ if the user does not have any preference regarding the respective game attribute. Allowing a user to define various game attributes along with a time that the user can play the game for enables refinement of the selection of portions of gameplay based on the user's preferences, thereby further enhancing the user's gameplay experience. See at least [0047]).
Regarding Claim 8 and 23: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose adjusting one or more parameters of the second game based on a performance of the user during the first game. However, Merzenich teaches adjusting one or more parameters of the second game based on a performance of the user during the first game (The games are structured to progress, for each game participant, from a low initial difficulty level that is easily achievable by the game participant toward an approximate asymptotic limit of performance of the game participant. The adaptable difficulty parameters may comprise, for example, the salience, number, duration, and distribution of the target and/or distractor stimuli. See at least [0100]. Also: Typically, games also include multiple levels 17 and multiple stages 18, each level 17 having a plurality of blocks 16 and each stage 18 having a plurality of levels 17. In a typical multilevel game 4, the game participant is required to achieve a certain threshold of performance in order to “unlock” another, more difficult level 17. See at least [0272]). The motivation to combine Eatedali and Merzenich is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 9 and 24: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose adjusting one or more parameters of the first game or the second game based on a performance of the user during a third game that is played before the session length is received. However, Merzenich teaches adjusting one or more parameters of the first game or the second game based on a performance of the user during a third game that is played before the session length is received (Between blocks 16 of trials 15, the program manager adapts one or more parameters—such as the salience, duration, and number of target stimuli 20, the salience, duration, and number of distractor stimuli, and the time period between which the target stimuli are presented and the program manager 7 prompts the participant to answer questions that relate to the target stimuli—affecting a difficulty of the game 4 in response to the game participant's input. See at least [0271]). The motivation to combine Eatedali and Merzenich is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 10 and 25: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali further discloses wherein the session length includes a substance craving duration indicating an amount of time the user estimates a substance craving will last (the interface 150 of user input module 125 may present (via a drop-down menu, for example) a fixed set of time periods, such as 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 5 hours, 8 hours, 10 hours, 20 hours, or any increment therein. See at least [0044]).
Regarding Claim 11 and 26: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali further discloses determining a user state before the session length is received; and adjusting one or more parameters of the first game or the second game based on the user state (In embodiments, a user may be prompted to select one out of a predefined range of values, such as values ranging from a minimum of 1 player to an infinite number of players, or any increment therein, to define a number of opponents that the user would like to play with via the input box 160. Further, Input box 162 may, in an embodiment, provide a predefined range of values, ranging from ‘>1’ to ‘>5’, for example, or any increment therein, wherein each value defines a selectable skill level of opponents for gameplay. For each of the inputs 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, and 162, a user may select the option ‘any’ if the user does not have any preference regarding the respective game attribute. Allowing a user to define various game attributes along with a time that the user can play the game for enables refinement of the selection of portions of gameplay based on the user's preferences, thereby further enhancing the user's gameplay experience. See at least [0047]).
Regarding Claim 18: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali further discloses wherein the first game is configured to shift a selective attention of the user away from their internal qualia (The video game may be from any video game genre. Video game genres include 1) action games, such as platform, shooter, fighting, stealth, survival, and rhythm games, 2) action-adventure games, such as survival horror or metroidvania games, 3) adventure games, such as text, graphic, visual, interactive or real-time 3D adventures, 4) role-playing games, such as action RPG, MMORPG, Roguelikes, tactical RPG, sandbox RPG, first-person party-based RPG, cultural differences, choices, or fantasy games, 5) simulation games, construction and management simulation, life simulation, or vehicle simulation games, 6) strategy games, such as 4X, artillery, real-time strategy, real-time tactics, multiplayer online baffle arena, tower defense, turn based strategy, turn based tactics, wargame, or grand strategy games, 7) sports games, such as racing, competitive, basketball, football, baseball, soccer, hockey, or sports-based fighting, or 8) the following other genres: MMO, casual, party, programming, logic, trivia, board, card, advergame, art, or educational. See at least [0038]. Examiner’s note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of “shift[ing] a selective attention of the user away from their internal qualia” appears to encompass any game configured to divert or distract a user, which is generally a feature of video games).
Regarding Claim 32: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose wherein the first game is configured to target a cognitive process of awareness. However, Merzenich teaches wherein the first game is configured to target a cognitive process of awareness (Self-control games train the participant to suppress automatic processes like reading words, particularly if they relate to substances (Stroop task with trigger words), and attending to external stimuli (Mindfulness task). Participants are also trained to observe and alter their choice behavior to be more consistent with their healthy peers (Temporal choice game that provides self-awareness). See at least [0472]). The motivation to combine Eatedali and Merzenich is the same as explained under claim 1 above, and is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 12 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eatedali et al. (US 2020/0155943 A1) in view of Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355 A1), and further in view of DaLaet (US 10413827 B1).
Regarding Claim 12 and 27: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose wherein the user state includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a psychometric profile of the user, biometric information of the user, a chronotype of the user, and a circadian rhythm phase of the user. However, DaLaet teaches wherein the user state includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a psychometric profile of the user, biometric information of the user, a chronotype of the user, and a circadian rhythm phase of the user (The biometrics module 20 may be configured to obtain biometric characteristic information about the users from the user client computing platforms 28. The biometrics module 20 may obtain biometric characteristic information in a variety of ways. In some implementations, the biometrics module 20 may periodically prompt the user (e.g., via a pop up window, instant message, etc.) to employ the one or more biometrics scanning components at the client computing platforms 28. For example, periodically (e.g., at the start of gameplay; every 10 minute, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour; after completion of a quest; before starting a task; randomly, and/or other consideration), the user may be prompted to take a picture of their face using a camera (or other component) at the client computing platform 28 such that the biometrics module 20 may obtain facial feature information about the user (e.g., via the picture taken), and/or prompt the user to perform other actions related to employing one or more biometrics scanning components to obtain biometric characteristic information as described herein. See at least Column 7, Lines 12-31. Also: Briefly, the emotional state of the user may affect the user's gameplay experience. As such, through a determination of a mood profile of the users, game content can be selectively identified and presented to the user in accordance with the mood profile to enhance the user's gameplay experience in the online game. See at least Column 5, Lines 4-9).
Eatedali and Merzenich suggests a self-control improving game system, upon which the claimed invention’s use of biometric data to adjust the games can be seen as an improvement. However, DaLaet demonstrates that the prior art already knew of adjusting games for a user based on biometric data. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the game adjustment techniques of DaLaet to the self-control game system of Eatedali and Merzenich. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of DaLaet’s would have resulted in an improved system which would be more engaging to users. As such the application of DaLaet and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Eatedali and the teachings of Merzenich and DaLaet.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eatedali et al. (US 2020/0155943 A1) in view of Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355 A1), and further in view of Klein et al. (US 2018/0075219 A1).
Regarding Claim 13 and 28: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose collecting information associated with the user during the first game or the second game; determining a predicted time of a future substance craving of the user based on the information associated with the user; and displaying, via the graphical user interface, a recommendation to the user based on the predicted time of the future substance craving of the user. However, Klein teaches collecting information associated with the user during an exercise; determining a predicted time of a future substance craving of the user based on the information associated with the user; and displaying, via the graphical user interface, a recommendation to the user based on the predicted time of the future substance craving of the user (In some implementations, the application can also present to the user a craving rating indicator. The indicator can initially be set automatically by the predictive analysis module 238. For example, if the predictive analysis module 238 predicts the user is about to experience a craving, the craving indicator can be set to a relatively high level. As the user performs the mindful breathing exercise, the craving indicator can lower. If the user does not feel the craving passing, the user can reset the craving indicator to a relatively higher level, which will cause the mindful breathing exercise to continue for a longer period of time. See at least [0144]. Also: In some implementations, the messages are contextualized messages that are linked to the user's cravings and withdrawals. For example, when the smoking cessation therapeutics system 120 predicts the user is about to experience a craving, the smoking cessation therapeutics system 120 can transmit a message to the patient monitoring device 110, for display to the user of the patient monitoring device 110, with a thought provoking question or an inspirational statement of why the user should quit smoking. An example question can include “David, stop and think about why you're quitting: for my children.” See at least [0127]).
Eatedali and Merzenich suggests a self-control improving game system, upon which the claimed invention’s behavior predictions and intervention can be seen as an improvement. However, Klein demonstrates that the prior art already knew of predicting a user’s cravings and providing an intervention based on the prediction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Klein to the game system of Eatedali and Merzenich. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Klein would have resulted in an improved system which would better assist users with self-control. As such the application of Klein, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Eatedali and the teachings of Merzenich and Klein.
Regarding Claim 14 and 29: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose collecting information associated with the user during the first game or the second game; determining a recommendation on how to adjust a future substance dose based on the information associated with the user; and displaying, via the graphical user interface, the recommendation to the user at or before the future substance dose. However, Klein teaches collecting information associated with the user during an exercise; determining a recommendation on how to adjust a future substance dose based on the information associated with the user; and displaying, via the graphical user interface, the recommendation to the user at or before the future substance dose (In some implementations, the application can also present to the user a craving rating indicator. The indicator can initially be set automatically by the predictive analysis module 238. For example, if the predictive analysis module 238 predicts the user is about to experience a craving, the craving indicator can be set to a relatively high level. As the user performs the mindful breathing exercise, the craving indicator can lower. If the user does not feel the craving passing, the user can reset the craving indicator to a relatively higher level, which will cause the mindful breathing exercise to continue for a longer period of time. See at least [0144]. Also: In some implementations, the messages are contextualized messages that are linked to the user's cravings and withdrawals. For example, when the smoking cessation therapeutics system 120 predicts the user is about to experience a craving, the smoking cessation therapeutics system 120 can transmit a message to the patient monitoring device 110, for display to the user of the patient monitoring device 110, with a thought provoking question or an inspirational statement of why the user should quit smoking. An example question can include “David, stop and think about why you're quitting: for my children.” See at least [0127]).
Eatedali and Merzenich suggests a self-control improving game system, upon which the claimed invention’s dosing recommendations. However, Klein demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing timed recommendations regarding substance doses. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Klein to the game system of Eatedali and Merzenich. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Klein would have resulted in an improved system which would better assist users desist their use of a substance. As such the application of Klein, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Eatedali and the teachings of Merzenich and Klein.
Claim(s) 15 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eatedali et al. (US 2020/0155943 A1) in view of Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355 A1), and further in view of Dills (US 10709983 B1).
Regarding Claim 15 and 30: Eatedali and Merzenich make obvious the above limitations. Eatedali does not appear to disclose wherein the first game or the second game is selected by an artificial intelligence engine using one or more machine learning models. However, Dills teaches wherein the game is selected by an artificial intelligence engine using one or more machine learning models (The trained neural network feeds the selections to a game server engine, which then feeds the selected events as in-game event challenges to a game client for presentation to an end user. See at least Column 1, Lines 38-41).
Eatedali and Merzenich suggests a self-control improving game system, upon which the claimed invention’s use of machine learning to select games can be seen as an improvement. However, Dills demonstrates that the prior art already knew of selecting games for a user with machine learning. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the machine learning game selection techniques to the self-control game system of Eatedali and Merzenich. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Dills would have resulted in an improved system which would be more engaging to users. As such the application of Dills, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Eatedali and the teachings of Merzenich and Dills.
Non-obvious Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 and 31 is/are understood to claim novel and non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter: Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355 A1), Somers et al. (US 2018/0090024 A1), and McDermott et al. (US 2018/0286272) each describe video games which engage a user’s selective attention. However, these references do not describe either tiling puzzle or spatial puzzle games which target a user’s selective attention. While tiling puzzle and spatial puzzle games were known in the prior art, in the prior does not reasonably teach such games targeting selective attention or provide a motivation to so combine such puzzles with targeting selective attention. As such, the further combination of such a game with Eatedali’s game session length management techniques, as claimed in claims 3 and 31, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(a) Rejections of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-30: Applicant has amended the claims to remove the limitations which the Office alleges are not supported by the Applicant’s specification.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered and they resolves the 112(a) issue. The rejection under 112(a) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-30: Applicant submits that claims 1-30 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). Thus, claims 1, 3-16, and 18-30 are not directed to a judicial exception because claims 1-30 integrate the alleged exception into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explain in the rejection above, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 of the prior office actions dated 20 August 2025 and 10 March 2026.
Conclusion
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 2026-07-24
Prosecution Insights