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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 11-20 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-10 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1 and 11 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “identifying in response to presenting a first stimulus to a user, a relevance value of the first stimulus indicative of a relevance of the first stimulus with a condition of the user; classifying responsive to the relevance value satisfying a threshold, the first stimulus as having a non-neutral reaction type associated with the condition to the user”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1 and 11 recite the additional limitations of “computing system”, “one or more data structures”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites various limitations at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210256542 to McDaniel et al. (hereinafter “McDaniel”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11. McDaniel discloses a method/system of associating stimuli with conditions of users (abstract, para 0004), comprising: identifying, by a computing system, in response to presenting a first stimulus to a user (para 0004 “exposing the subject to one or more sensory stimuli [] electronically measuring objective response data … computer”), a relevance value of the first stimulus indicative of a relevance of the first stimulus with a condition of the user (para 0004 “eliciting and electronically recording subjective response data from the subject to each sensory stimulus”); classifying, by the computing system, responsive to the relevance value satisfying a threshold, the first stimulus as having a non-neutral reaction type associated with the condition to the user (para 0004 “subjective responses and objective responses indicate an emotional response to the sensory stimulus”); storing, by the computing system, in one or more data structures, an association between the user and the first stimulus classified as having the non-neutral reaction type for presenting in a therapy session to address the condition of the user (para 0004 “response data into computer memory, wherein subjective responses and objective responses indicate an emotional response to the sensory stimulus”, 0007 “a “positive” response, [] or a “negative” response”); and providing, by the computing system, instructions for presenting the first stimulus in the therapy session to address the condition of the user (para 0004 “subject dataset” and to generate a “model”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising: selecting, by the computing system, from a plurality of stimuli classified as having a neutral reaction type, a second stimulus using a characteristic of the first stimulus (the claim as written does not provide any details regarding how “a plurality of stimuli classified as having a neutral reaction type” is being performed and what the “characteristics of the first stimulus are”, therefore, under BRI, any second set of stimulus is understood to read over the claimed limitation); generating, by the computing system, a set of stimuli comprising the first stimulus and the second stimulus (fig. 1, repeating the steps); and wherein storing the association further comprises storing the association between the user and the set of stimuli for presenting both the first stimulus and the second stimulus in the therapy session for addressing the condition of the user (para 0004 0007, to elicit positive or negative emotional responses … “increasing the amount of one or a plurality of sensory stimuli predicted to elicit a positive emotional response; and (ii) decreasing the amount of one or a plurality of sensory stimuli predicted to elicit a negative emotional response”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 2 system of claim 11, further comprising: identifying, by the computing system, from the one or more data structures, the association between a user and a set of stimuli comprising (i) the first stimulus and (ii) a second stimulus having a neutral reaction type (para 0004 “subjective responses and objective responses indicate an emotional response to the sensory stimulus”); presenting, by the computing system, in the therapy session for the user, the first stimulus and the second stimulus, concurrent with a cue to increase a likelihood of selection of a stimulus from the set of stimuli having a target reaction type (para 0008 “increasing/decreasing the amount of one or a plurality of sensory stimuli predicted to elicit a positive/negative emotional response”); receiving, by the computing system, a response identifying a selection by the user of a stimulus from the set of stimuli (para 0008 “emotional response is measured in each of multiple dimensions, each dimension measured on a discrete or continuous scale ….”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 2 and system of claim 11, wherein the therapy session includes an implicit association task (IAT) (para 0006 “the subject profile is obtained by providing a questionnaire to the subject and receiving from the subject answers to questions on the questionnaire”), and further comprising: presenting, by the computing system, the set of stimuli to increase the likelihood of selection of the stimulus having the neutral reaction type to associate the stimulus with a self of the user and to disassociate non-neutral stimuli from the self (para 0008, it is understood that the amount of one or a plurality of sensory stimuli can be adjusted to predict to elicit a specific emotional response; see para 0007, 0010, 0090, 0103, etc.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 3 and system of claim 13, wherein the therapy session includes at least one of attention bias modification training (ABMT) or go/no-go training, and wherein presenting further comprises presenting the cue to decrease the likelihood of selection of the stimulus having the non-neutral reaction type (para 0006, 0008 “increasing the amount of one or a plurality of sensory stimuli predicted to elicit a positive emotional response”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein the therapy session includes a personal trigger memory task, and wherein presenting further comprises presenting, without a cue, a plurality of stimuli including (i) the first stimulus (see rejection of claim 1) and (ii) a second stimulus having a neutral reaction type (para 0007 “the inferred emotional response includes a “neutral” response”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising identifying, by the computing system, a plurality of delivery parameters for user based on response data to the therapy session (para 0015, 0213, fig. 5 the claim as written does not provide any details regarding the “delivery parameters”, therefore under its BRI, any delivery having any parameters would read over the claimed limitation.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising identifying, by the computing system, the threshold to compare against the relevance value based on at least one of (i) a parameter of the therapy session or (ii) a relevance value of a second stimulus classified as having the non-neutral reaction type for the user (para 0020 “the method further comprises comparing the physiological signal from the subject with the reference physiological signal”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, wherein identifying the relevance value further comprises receiving a plurality of physiological measurements of the user in response to presentation of the first stimulus to the user (¶ 0006 “a plurality of objective responses selected from the group comprising facial expressions, micro expressions, brain signals, electroencephalography (EEG) signals, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals, body chemical stimuli, body chemical production, pupil dilation, skin conductance, skin potential, skin resistance, skin temperature, respiratory frequency, blood pressure, blood flow, saliva production and flow rate, and any combination thereof”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20. McDaniel discloses the method of claim 1 and system of claim 11, further comprising: identifying, by the computing system, a first evaluation dataset for the user at a first time prior to the therapy session and a second evaluation dataset for the user at a second time subsequent to the therapy session; and determining, by the computing system, a progression for the user in addressing the condition based on the first evaluation dataset and the second evaluation dataset (para 0008, 0198; the claim does not provide any details regarding the therapy session, therefore, under its BRI, any use of the device which is capable of increasing/decreasing a certain response is understood to be the therapy session.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796