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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/668,093 originally filed on May 17, 2024. Claims 1 and 2 are presented for examination. Claim 1 is independent.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application 63/503,436, filed May 19, 2023.
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 1, 2, 4A-B, 5, and 6A-E, 37 CFR 1.84(m), stated in part, prefers the use of shading when parts are shown in perspective. In the present case, the drawings use shading in an otherwise non-perspective view that would not be of sufficient quality so that all details in the drawings are reproducible in the printed patent. It is further noted that FIG. 2 is illegible. Therefore, the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents FIGS. 1, 2, 4A-B, 5, and 6A-E from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 and 2 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 significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a computer-implemented system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “executive function rehabilitation,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
“execute an assessment session, the assessment session configured to derive an initial assessment of an individual related to execution function;
provide a plurality of task assessments related to at least one of planning, organization, or cognitive flexibility, the plurality of task assessments ordered based on results of the initial assessment;
access results from the plurality of task assessments;
generate a dashboard based on at least a portion of the results from the plurality of task assessments, the dashboard providing a plurality of games for generating game results from the individual, the plurality of games focusing on cognitive flexibility, planning, and organization; and
output via the dashboard at least one score associated with the game results and recommended resources based on the at least one score.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a computer-implemented system” is claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “executive function rehabilitation” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., “a computer-implemented system” is claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computer-implemented system” is described in paragraph [0074] as including “any number of devices, such as personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, tablet devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronic devices, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, digital signal processors, state machines, logic circuitries, distributed computing environments, and the like,” and in paragraph [0085] as including “desktop computers, laptops, tablets e-readers, personal digital assistants, smartphones, gaming devices, servers, and the like.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a computer-implemented system” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claim 2 does not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anantha et al. (hereinafter “Anantha,” US 2019/0311643) in view of Charvat et al. (hereinafter “Charvat,” US 10,188,337).
Regarding claim 1, Anantha discloses a computer-implemented system for executive function rehabilitation (Anantha [0002], “systems and techniques for integrating expertise and personalization into interactive tools for language, cognitive, and/or skill (LCS) assessment and/or training”; also see Anantha Fig. 3, showing cognitive assessments and therapies), comprising:
a set of instructions executable by a processor (Anantha [0004], “one or more storage devices storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform acts”), such that the processor is configured to:
execute an assessment session, the assessment session configured to derive an initial assessment of an individual related to execution function (Anantha [0120], “an administrator may use system 100 to perform an assessment of a user's health, knowledge, and/or skills. In some embodiments, the assessment may serve as a baseline measurement of the user's health, knowledge, and/or skills,” the baseline assessment is an assessment session);
provide a plurality of task assessments related to at least one of planning, organization, or cognitive flexibility, the plurality of task assessments ordered based on results of the initial assessment (Anantha [0100], “user 130 performs personalized tasks selected by TPE 110. The personalized tasks may be selected based, at least in part, on an initial (e.g., baseline) assessment of the user”);
access results from the plurality of task assessments (Anantha [0076], “performance data 650 may include data characterizing the user's activities (e.g., the user's performance of tasks and/or any suitable interaction between the user and system 100), including, without limitation, the accuracy of the user's responses or activities, the user's latency (e.g., the time taken by the user to perform tasks and/or portions thereof), the sequence and nature of steps or actions performed by the user to complete a task, the number and sequence of hints given to the user during performance of a task, the correlation between a sequence of actions or prior tasks on the user's score for a task, and/or a quantified measurement of the impact of a noisy environment (e.g., deliberately introduced noise or context specific noise) on the user's performance (relative to the user's performance in a quiet environment),” the system collects performance data, which include results of performing the personalized tasks selected by TPE [task personalization engine]).
Anantha does not explicitly teach every limitation of generate a dashboard based on at least a portion of the results from the plurality of task assessments, the dashboard providing a plurality of games for generating game results from the individual, the plurality of games focusing on cognitive flexibility, planning, and organization; and output via the dashboard at least one score associated with the game results and recommended resources based on the at least one score.
Anantha does disclose generating a dashboard based on at least a portion of the results of the plurality of task assessments, the dashboard providing a plurality of tasks for generating task results from the individual, the plurality of tasks focusing on cognitive flexibility, planning, and organization; and output via the dashboard at least one score associated with the task results and recommended tasks based on the at least one score (Anantha [0094], “the TPE may generate a personalized task regimen for the user and prompt the user to perform the tasks in the task regimen… In some embodiments of the automatic mode, the TPE may select task types, task, and/or task content for the user based, at least in part, on the user's performance on previously performed tasks,” the TPE selects tasks to present to the user based on performance on previously performed tasks, such as the earlier “task assessments”; see also Anantha Fig. 9, showing a dashboard listing several tasks and scores associated with them. New tasks may be recommended based on scores from performed tasks). However, Anantha does not explicitly teach that the items in the dashboard are “games,” and the recommended items based on the scores are “resources.”
However, Charvat discloses a dashboard having ratings for each cognitive domain (scores), information about each cognitive domain (recommended resources), information about NeuroNet (recommended resources), and brain training games in areas assessed as needing improvement (games) (Charvat col. 20 line 65 through col. 21 line 6, “A dashboard provides a main menu page for the user that includes links to pages in the application such as a results page with bell curve ratings for each cognitive domain, a brain type report page, information about each cognitive domain with definitions, information about the science and research behind NeuroNet, an icon connecting the user to brain training games in areas assessed as needing improvement, and to the user's personal profile and account information.”; also Charvat col. 21 lines 7-15, “A web-based enterprise dashboard is available for EPP customers to view individual and group results in detail, down to response times and percentile scores on all the tests, as well as the “Brain Profile Type” for each user, and even in groups customized by the EPP client. The EPP customers that purchase NeuroNet's suite of complimentary prescriptive training games for cognitive and emotional intelligence can also access the NeuroNet results generated training recommendations.”).
Charvat is analogous to Anantha, as both are drawn to the art of cognitive testing and training. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Anantha, to include the items in the dashboard are games, and the recommended items based on the scores are resources, as taught by Charvat, since it is a simple substitution of one known element (games or resources) for another (tasks) to obtain predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Anantha in view of Charvat discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: generate an additional assessment session to derive a follow-up assessment of the individual related to execution function; and compare the results of the initial assessment to the follow-up assessment to weigh improvement of the individual (Anantha [0098], “TPE 110 may generate a personalized task regimen for the user (e.g., based on the user's preferences and the user's performance on previously performed tasks),” generating a new personalized task regimen based on the user’s performance on previously performed tasks is deriving “a follow-up assessment”; also Anantha [0085], “if the user's performance exceeds an upper threshold, TPE 610 may increase the difficulty level of one or more tasks in the user's task regimen, add one or more tasks to the user's task regimen, and/or replace at least one task in the user's task regimen with at least one more difficult task,” measuring improvement; also Anantha [0135], “reports indicating a user's improvements over several weeks in accuracy and reaction time (e.g., latency) after a traumatic brain injury on a multi-dimensional cognition, language and/or skill profile personalized for the user,” tracking improvements by comparing with past results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Merzenich et al. (US 9,308,445) Neuroplasticity games
Martucci et al. (US 2017/0098385) Processor-implemented systems and methods for enhancing cognitivie abilities by personalizing cognitive training regimens
Anderson et al. (US 2018/0317931) Diagnostic tool for assessing neurodevelopmental conditions or disorders
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715