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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 139, 144, and 145 in the reply filed on 19 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 140-143 and 146-155 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 September 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 27 November 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS states that, regarding the cited foreign references, the English language abstract of each of cite no. A-D are relevant. An English-language abstract when being used as an explanation of relevance of the document as a whole, and not considered the "relevant passage", should not be cited in the “Pages, Columns Lines where Relevant Passages or Relevant Figures Appear” column of the citation in the IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each page of pages 1-6 containing Fig. 1-12 recite “SUBSTITUTE SHEET (RULE 26)”. This is improper because they are not replacing previously filed drawings in this application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill in a computer-based virtual environment for skill transfer that is different from the computer-based virtual environment for skill training” and “(f) following completion of the mission, the user performing a skill retention exercise for the skill transfer, the skill transfer comprising an exercise utilizing a second story line for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user, wherein the retention challenge tasks are different from the challenge tasks presented during skill training, wherein the retention challenge tasks are configured for the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill, and wherein the targeted cognitive skill is motivational inhibition” of claim 139 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Regarding the entering of new matter, it is recommended to pay close attention to what is disclosed in the originally filed specification regarding these limitations so that any amendments to the drawings do not exceed what was originally disclosed and create a new matter situation.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the specification is improperly formatted including at least missing paragraph numbers.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must
be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
It is noted that the quantity of documents cited throughout the specification is quite large (the Office counts at least 15 documents incorporated by reference), yet these documents are not provided in an information disclosure statement. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites multiple acronyms and abbreviations. The first instance of an acronym or abbreviation should be accompanied by the fully written term. Non-limiting examples of acronyms or abbreviations that are missing the fully written term include at least “LCD” and “LED”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a computer-based virtual learning curriculum for training a cognitive skill in the user” in claim 139.
“a first game portion comprises cognitive skill training for training a targeted cognitive skill” in claim 139.
“a second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill in a computer-based virtual environment for skill transfer that is different from the computer-based virtual environment for skill training module” in claim 139.
“a first story line for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting higher attention state levels in the user” in claim 139.
“the challenge tasks are for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user” in claim 139.
“a second story line for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user” in claim 139.
“the retention challenge tasks are for the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill” in claim 139.
“the skill training trains motivational inhibition” in claim 139.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 139, 144, and 145 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.
Claim limitation “a first game portion comprises cognitive skill training for training a targeted cognitive skill” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training a targeted cognitive skill. Additionally, a “first game portion comprises cognitive skill training” is construed as a “skill training module”. The specification provides two different definitions of a skill training module. Line 38 of pg. 12 - line 2 of pg. 13 recite “As used herein, the term ‘skill training module’ refers to a type of video game learning module designed to teach one or several targeted cognitive skills within a virtual fantasy world. For example, the user may enter this module first upon beginning the first mission of the video game and then each succeeding mission. The skill training module is configured to train one or more of the user's cognitive skills in an entertaining and rapid manner.” Separately, lines 34-39 of pg. 14 recite “As used herein, ‘skill training module’ refers to a mission in the game that requires use of a cognitive skill to progress to its corresponding skill transfer module. A skill training module can be a type of virtual learning curriculum uniquely designed to teach one or several cognitive skills within a series of story adventure missions. The user can enter a skill transfer module as a user avatar first upon beginning the first mission of the virtual learning curriculum and advances to each succeeding mission. The skill training module can be configured to train the user's cognitive skills in an entertaining and rapid manner.” To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill in a computer-based virtual environment for skill transfer that is different from the computer-based virtual environment for skill training module” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill. Additionally, a “second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer” is construed as a “skill transfer module”. The specification provides two different definitions of a skill training module. Lines 3-12 of pg. 13 recite “As used herein, the term ‘skill transfer module’ refers to a type of video game learning module entered after completion of the skill training module in a level or mission of the video game. The skill transfer module is configured to reinforce and demonstrate to the user the targeted cognitive training skills taught in the preceding skill training module(s). The skill transfer module is a game module for presenting cognitive skill retention exercises to the user following the performance by the user of a training module for training the targeted cognitive skill. The skill transfer module presents the cognitive challenge tasks in a context and/or environment that is different from the training module to demonstrate and report the adaptability of the targeted skill in real life and maximize retention for later use. For example, the skill training module can be presented as a testing environment in which cognitive challenge tasks are reviewed for multiple different uses to manage skills optimization.” Separately, line 40 of pg. 14 - line 8 of pg. 15 recite “As used herein, ‘skill transfer module’ refers to a mission in the game that tests the user's development of one or more of the cognitive skills trained by the preceding skill training module(s). A skill transfer module can be a type of virtual learning curriculum entered after completion of the skill training module in any mission of the video game. The skill transfer module is can be configured to reinforce and demonstrate to the user, medical professional, teacher, parent, or any third party the targeted cognitive training skills learned and taught in the preceding skill training module(s). The skill transfer module can be a game module for presenting cognitive skill retention exercises to the user following the performance by the user of a training module for training the targeted cognitive skill. The skill transfer module can present the cognitive challenge tasks in a context and/or environment that is different from the training module to demonstrate adaptability of the targeted skill in real life and maximize retention for later use.” To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a first story line for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting higher attention state levels in the user” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting high attention state levels in the user. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the challenge tasks are for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a second story line for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user. Additionally, the disclosure is silent regarding what these retention challenge tasks are beyond vaguely reciting that “a ‘retention challenge task’ refers to a game element requiring a user response that is configured to demonstrate retention of a targeted cognitive skill trained in the user.” See lines 3-4 of pg. 14 in the specification. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the retention challenge tasks are for the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for demonstrating retention of the targeted cognitive skill. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding what these retention challenge tasks are beyond vaguely reciting that “a ‘retention challenge task’ refers to a game element requiring a user response that is configured to demonstrate retention of a targeted cognitive skill trained in the user.” See lines 3-4 of pg. 14 in the specification. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a computer-based virtual learning curriculum for training a cognitive skill in the user” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Due to the failure of the written description to disclose the corresponding, structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions identified above and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to those functions, the written description fails to disclose the same regarding the virtual learning curriculum configured to train a cognitive skill in the user. This is because the virtual learning curriculum encompasses these elements. Thus, the failures regarding the elements of the virtual learning curriculum is failure to sufficiently disclose the virtual learning curriculum itself. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the skill training trains motivational inhibition” in claim 139 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training motivational inhibition. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any particular procedure for training motivational inhibition beyond merely defining motivational inhibition as “modifying behavior in response to punishments or rewards”. See Table 2 in pg. 19 of the specification. Given this definition, the disclosure is silent regarding how punishments or rewards are provided to the user in the context of the training motivational inhibition embodiment. To claim a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “suffering from” in “suffering from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)” in claim 139 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suffering from” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For instance, the background section of the specification merely recites that “[s]uch systems could benefit users suffering from a wide variety of learning disabilities due to neuro developmental delays, such as patients with ADHD” and “[t]he training system can be evaluated for effectiveness in children suffering from ADHD” without any further description. See lines 31-32 of pg. 2 and line 5 of pg. 33 in the specification, respectively. Therefore, the specification leaves “suffering from” as unbounded. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. It is recommended to replace “suffering from” with the term “with”. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 139 recites the limitation "the computer-based virtual environment for skill training" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 139, 144, and 145 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 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the first game portion comprises cognitive skill training for training a targeted cognitive skill” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training a targeted cognitive skill. The most disclosure is provided in two separate definitions of a skill training module. Line 38 of pg. 12 - line 2 of pg. 13 recite “As used herein, the term ‘skill training module’ refers to a type of video game learning module designed to teach one or several targeted cognitive skills within a virtual fantasy world. For example, the user may enter this module first upon beginning the first mission of the video game and then each succeeding mission. The skill training module is configured to train one or more of the user's cognitive skills in an entertaining and rapid manner.” Separately, lines 34-39 of pg. 14 recite “As used herein, ‘skill training module’ refers to a mission in the game that requires use of a cognitive skill to progress to its corresponding skill transfer module. A skill training module can be a type of virtual learning curriculum uniquely designed to teach one or several cognitive skills within a series of story adventure missions. The user can enter a skill transfer module as a user avatar first upon beginning the first mission of the virtual learning curriculum and advances to each succeeding mission. The skill training module can be configured to train the user's cognitive skills in an entertaining and rapid manner.” Furthermore, this is merely reciting that the limitation is performed in result-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill in a computer-based virtual environment for skill transfer that is different from computer-based virtual environment for skill training, wherein the computer-based virtual environment for the skill transfer is in the form of a school or work place” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding the newly added limitation “wherein the virtual environment for the skill transfer module is in the form of a school or work place”, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding the computer-based virtual environment for the skill transfer being in the form of a school or work place. In particular, lines 31-32 of pg. 22 of the originally filed specification recites “the skills transfer modules can be within a more realistic environment, such as a laboratory in a space transport, which is similar in nature to a school, work place or laboratory.” Being similar in nature to a school or work place is distinctly different from being in the form of a school or work place. Thus, this is new matter. Further, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill. The most disclosure is provided in two separate definitions of a skill transfer module. Lines 3-12 of pg. 13 recite “As used herein, the term ‘skill transfer module’ refers to a type of video game learning module entered after completion of the skill training module in a level or mission of the video game. The skill transfer module is configured to reinforce and demonstrate to the user the targeted cognitive training skills taught in the preceding skill training module(s). The skill transfer module is a game module for presenting cognitive skill retention exercises to the user following the performance by the user of a training module for training the targeted cognitive skill. The skill transfer module presents the cognitive challenge tasks in a context and/or environment that is different from the training module to demonstrate and report the adaptability of the targeted skill in real life and maximize retention for later use. For example, the skill training module can be presented as a testing environment in which cognitive challenge tasks are reviewed for multiple different uses to manage skills optimization.” Separately, line 40 of pg. 14 - line 8 of pg. 15 recite “As used herein, ‘skill transfer module’ refers to a mission in the game that tests the user's development of one or more of the cognitive skills trained by the preceding skill training module(s). A skill transfer module can be a type of virtual learning curriculum entered after completion of the skill training module in any mission of the video game. The skill transfer module is can be configured to reinforce and demonstrate to the user, medical professional, teacher, parent, or any third party the targeted cognitive training skills learned and taught in the preceding skill training module(s). The skill transfer module can be a game module for presenting cognitive skill retention exercises to the user following the performance by the user of a training module for training the targeted cognitive skill. The skill transfer module can present the cognitive challenge tasks in a context and/or environment that is different from the training module to demonstrate adaptability of the targeted skill in real life and maximize retention for later use.” Furthermore, this is merely reciting that the limitation is performed in result-based language without providing the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the user performing a training exercise for the skill training, the skill training comprising an exercise utilizing a first story line for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting higher attention state levels in the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting high attention state levels in the user. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the skill training trains motivational inhibition by presenting the user with non-targets which the user must inhibit responses to” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training motivational inhibition. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any particular procedure for training motivational inhibition beyond merely defining motivational inhibition as “modifying behavior in response to punishments or rewards”. See Table 2 in pg. 19 of the specification. Given this definition, the disclosure is silent regarding how punishments or rewards are provided to the user in the context of the training motivational inhibition embodiment. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the challenge tasks are for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the user performing a skill retention exercise for the skill transfer, the skill transfer comprising an exercise utilizing a second story line for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user. Additionally, the disclosure is silent regarding what these retention challenge tasks are beyond vaguely reciting that “a ‘retention challenge task’ refers to a game element requiring a user response that is configured to demonstrate retention of a targeted cognitive skill trained in the user.” See lines 3-4 of pg. 14 in the specification. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the retention challenge tasks are different from the challenge tasks presented during skill training, wherein the retention challenge tasks are for the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill, and wherein the targeted cognitive skill is motivational inhibition” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure merely recites similar language as the claim, but fails to describe an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for demonstrating retention of the targeted cognitive skill. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding what these retention challenge tasks are beyond vaguely reciting that “a ‘retention challenge task’ refers to a game element requiring a user response that is configured to demonstrate retention of a targeted cognitive skill trained in the user.” See lines 3-4 of pg. 14 in the specification. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a computer-based virtual learning curriculum for training a cognitive skill in the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Due to the failure of the written description to disclose the corresponding, structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions identified above and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to those functions, the written description fails to disclose the same regarding the virtual learning curriculum configured to train a cognitive skill in the user. This is because the virtual learning curriculum encompasses these elements. Thus, the failures regarding the elements of the virtual learning curriculum is failure to sufficiently disclose the virtual learning curriculum itself. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, the inadequate disclosure gives rise to a failure to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 USC 112(a). Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 139, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the method is performed by the user to ameliorate a symptom of ADHD in the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Due to the failure of the written description to disclose the corresponding, structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions identified above and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to those functions, the written description also fails to disclose the same regarding the user performing the method in an amount sufficient to reduce at least one of inattention, impulsivity, or hyperactivity. Additionally, the specification merely recites, in lines 23-24 of pg. 11, that “the user has ADHD and the method is performed by the user in an amount or frequency sufficient to reduce at least one of inattention, impulsivity, or hyperactivity in the user as measured by the ADHD rating scale.” The disclosure does not identify what constitutes the claimed amelioration of “a symptom of ADHD in the user.” Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function itself as well. Dependent claims 144 and 145 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 139, 144, and 145 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method which falls under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 139 recites:
A method for treating a subject suffering from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the method comprising:
(a) providing an electroencephalographic (EEG)-based brain-to-computer interface (BCI) and a computer-based virtual learning curriculum for training a cognitive skill in the user, wherein the virtual learning curriculum comprises at least a first game portion and a second game portion, wherein the first game portion comprises cognitive skill training for training a targeted cognitive skill and the second game portion comprises cognitive skill transfer for permitting the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill in a computer-based virtual environment for skill transfer that is different from the computer-based virtual environment for skill training, wherein the computer-based virtual environment for the skill transfer is in the form of a school or workplace;
(b) measuring the EEG brain activity signals of the user with the EEG-based BCI and on the basis of the EEG brain activity signals calculating the attention state level of the user and displaying the attention level to the user;
(c) the user performing a training exercise for the skill training, the skill training comprising an exercise utilizing a first story line for advancing a user avatar toward completion of a mission while eliciting higher attention state levels in the user, wherein an increase or decrease in the attention state level of the user produces a corresponding increase or decrease in the speed of the user avatar towards the completion of the mission, wherein the skill training trains motivational inhibition by presenting the user with non-targets which the user must inhibit responses to;
(d) during step (c), presenting challenge tasks to the user, wherein the challenge tasks are for training a targeted cognitive skill in the user;
(e) during step (d), on the basis of the user response to the challenge tasks, calculating a skill performance score for the user and increasing the difficulty of achieving the challenge tasks when the skill performance score rises above a predetermined upper threshold and decreasing the difficulty of achieving the challenge tasks when the skill performance score falls below a predetermined lower threshold while the user avatar advances towards the completion of the mission; and
(f) following completion of the mission, the user performing a skill retention exercise for the skill transfer, the skill transfer comprising an exercise utilizing a second story line for presenting retention challenge tasks to the user, wherein the retention challenge tasks are different from the challenge tasks presented during skill training, wherein the retention challenge tasks are for the user to demonstrate retention of the targeted cognitive skill, and wherein the targeted cognitive skill is motivational inhibition;
wherein the method is performed by the user to ameliorate a symptom of ADHD in the user.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above, both individually and as a whole, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as it loosely describes a cognitive skill training session. Furthermore, the calculating steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) which recites “[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation." While the disclosure does not identify explicit formulas, the specification repeatedly refers to an attention state level as numerical value or percentage score that is calculated, recites that a skill performance score is calculated, recites in lines 19-20 of pg. 46 that the “raw motivational inhibition value divided by the total number of incorrect responses for the session becomes the motivational inhibition score when scaled from 0 to 100%”. This combination of a numerical value and references to calculations in the specification, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifies that the claimed calculating steps are mathematical calculations.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: an electroencephalographic (EEG)-based brain-to-computer interface (BCI) (claim 139), identifying that the learning curriculum, the environment for skill training, and the environment for skill transfer are computer-based and virtual (claim 139), and that the attention state level is calculated based on EEG brain activities signals (claim 139). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed In particular, the figures are silent any clear structural elements for performing the claimed method. The closest is found in Fig. 3-12 which at best illustrate screenshots of a computer screen. Evidence is also found in the generic nature in which any structural items are described in the claims and the specification. For example, lines 16-22 of pg. 8, line 32 of pg. 11 - line 10 of pg. 12, lines 16-26 of pg. 12, line 32 of pg. 12 - line 12 of pg. 13, lines 13-15 of pg. 15, line 29 0f pg. 29 - line 24 of pg. 30, lines 19-24 of pg. 33, and lines 18-19 of pg. 38. Furthermore, some of the steps are explicitly claimed to be performed by the user, which evidences that the computerized technology is merely used. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. This also evidences that the elements are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Claim 139 merely recites the intended use of treating a subject suffering from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), training a cognitive skill in the user (and identifying that cognitive skill as motivational inhibition), and wherein the method is performed by the user to ameliorate a symptom of ADHD in the user. Thus, the steps of the method at best provide a generalized approach and do not effect a particular treatment, let alone any actual treatment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite elements (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2), these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. This is evidenced by the lack of significant structure in the figures. In particular, the figures are silent any clear structural elements for performing the claimed method. The closest is found in Fig. 3-12 which at best illustrate screenshots of a computer screen. Evidence is also found in the generic nature in which any structural items are described in the claims and the specification (see, for example, lines 16-22 of pg. 8, line 32 of pg. 11 - line 10 of pg. 12, lines 16-26 of pg. 12, line 32 of pg. 12 - line 12 of pg. 13, lines 13-15 of pg. 15, line 29 0f pg. 29 - line 24 of pg. 30, lines 19-24 of pg. 33, and lines 18-19 of pg. 38). Furthermore, some of the steps are explicitly claimed to be performed by the user, which evidences that the computerized technology is merely used. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the elements are an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of a computer system. For example, lines 37-39 of pg. 33 recite that the “user can experience improvements in cognitive skills following training using, for example, any of the assessment methods described below, or other methods known in the art for assessing cognitive skills.” None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. In particular, the hardware elements are merely recited passively, indicating that the claimed method can be entirely performed by a human, including the embodiment of a human controlling the operation of a computer. This is explicitly identified in limitation (c) and (f) which identify that the user performs the respective exercises, and in the last limitation of claim 139 which identifies that “the method is performed by the user”. Therefore, viewed both individually and as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
No prior art are applied in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Metuki (US 2015/0140525) discloses a cognitive training method for semantic skills enhancement, including assessing a behavioral inhibition measure and three behavioral approach measures.
Merzenich et al. (US 9,308,445) discloses neuroplasticity games.
Cohen et al. (US 9,498,704; US 9,849,388; and US 10,322,349) disclose learning and cognitive training in a virtual environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715