DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 06/25/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objection
4. Claims 1-20 are objected to since each of claims 1, 8 and 15 involves a line that contains an improper punctuation mark. In particular, the semicolon (:), as applied per line 11 of claim 1, per line 12 of claim 8, and per line 11 of claim 15, should be removed since no punctuation mark is required at that specific point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as the representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[present] one or more visual prompts to cause one or more user interactions by a user;
receive gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions, the gaming performance data comprises an emotional response of the user based at least (a) one or more images of the user and (b) one or more verbal comments of the user;
determine one or more cognitive factors for the user based on the gaming performance data, wherein the one or more cognitive factors comprise a multitasking factor; and
generate an output associated with the user based at least in part on the one or more cognitive factors, as determined.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, regarding the group certain methods of organizing human activity, the user is presented with one or more games—such as, a game that comprises one or more visual prompts; and thereby, the user is required to interact with one or more of the visual prompts; and furthermore, pertinent information or output is presented based on the user’s interactions, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: determining, based on the user’s interaction with one or more visual prompts presented as part of a game, the user’s gaming performance data, which comprises the user’s emotional response based on (a) an image(s) of the user and (b) a verbal comment(s) of the user; determining, based on the performance data, one or more cognitive factors for the user, the cognitive factor(s) comprises a multitasking factor; and generating, based on the determined cognitive factor(s) above, an output associated with the user, etc., the limitations also correspond to the group mental processes, i.e., a concept that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper—e.g., an evaluation, an observation, a judgement, etc.
Step 2A [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer system that comprises computer components—such as, one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, a user device, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: transmitting content—such as an interactive game—to the user’s device (e.g., “transmitting, to a user device of a user, a graphical user interface for display on the user device, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more activation controls for activating one or more gaming interfaces that comprise one or more visual prompts to cause one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces by the user”); collecting input data via the user’s device (e.g., “upon determining that at least one of the one or more gaming interfaces is activated, receiving, from the user device, gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions, wherein the gaming performance data comprises . . . verbal comments of the user received by a microphone of the user device”); analyzing the collected information using an algorithm (e.g., “determining, by the one or more processors, one or more cognitive factors for the user based on the gaming performance data, wherein the one or more cognitive factors comprise a multitasking factor”); generating/presenting a pertinent result based on the analysis (e.g., “generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the user based at least in part on the one or more cognitive factors, as determined”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting—per the original disclosure—that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, per the specification, the claimed—and disclosed—steps/functions, which includes the process of: presenting the user with a content item in the form of a GUI that comprises one or more controls; collecting performance data based on detected interactions; determining cognitive factors based on the performance data; generating an output related to the user based on the cognitive factors, etc., is facilitated using a system that implements conventional hardware and software components (e.g., see [0021] to [0032]; [0034], [0049], etc.).
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of training and/or assessing a user, including the process of presenting the user with one or more interactive content items, and generating one or more performance results related to the user based on the analysis of one or more inputs received from the user during the user’s interaction with one or more content items, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2015/0196242; US 2009/0131152; US 2004/0210159, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/25/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while referring to the current amendment, Applicant asserts, “amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15, among other things, integrate an idea into a practical application . . . the claims recite an improvement to other technology or technical field, and also recite use of the ideas in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a particular technological environment. For example, amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite many significant additional elements above and beyond what the Office Action identifies as the abstract idea . . . The specific, concrete approach in these additional elements provides a combination of steps that (a) improves the technical field of user interfaces for testing cognitive skills and (b) uses the combination of steps in a meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment” (emphasis added).
However, except for making several conclusory assertions regarding the alleged technological improvement, which supposedly includes improvement in the “technical field of user interfaces for testing cognitive skills”, and/or uses the combination of the claimed steps in “meaningful way that is not generally linking to a technological environment”, etc., Applicant still fails to point out a claimed/disclosed technological feature (if any)—or a combination of claimed/disclosed features (if any)—the provides the alleged technological improvement. In fact, Applicant does not appear to articulate what the alleged technological improvement involves. For instance, despite asserting that the combination of the current claimed steps “improves the technical field of user interfaces for testing cognitive skills”, Applicant fails to point out what feature or functionality (if any) of the user interface is assumed to be improved. In contrast, given the currently claimed—and originally disclosed—features, the claimed (and disclosed) system/method is implementing merely features/functions of existing graphical user interfaces; such as: capturing one or more inputs that a user is providing during interaction with a computer-generated scenario; outputting one or more results to the user, etc. So far, except for simply relying on such functions of the existing computer technology, Applicant fails to point out a new or advanced technological feature (if any) that the claimed (and/or the disclosed) system/method is assumed to be implementing.
Note that the same is true regarding part of the current claimed limitations that Applicant identified,
“ upon determining that at least one of the one or more gaming interfaces is activated, receiving, from the user device, gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions, wherein the gaming performance data: comprises an emotional response of the user of the user device; and is based on at least (a) one or more images of the user taken by a camera of the user device and (b) one or more verbal comments of the user received by a microphone of the user device” (emphasis added).
Thus, as evident from the excerpt above, the user utilizes his/her device, which is a computing device in the from of a smartphone or a laptop (see [0021 and [0032] of the specification), to activate a game interface and interact with a game; and accordingly, the computing device collects, via a camera and a microphone, relevant data related to the user (i.e., capturing an image of the user via the camera; and capturing voice/verbal expressions via the microphone). Of course, depending on the desired objective, the collected data above is analyzed in order to estimate one or more attributes related to the user, regardless of whether the attribute(s) being estimated relates to the user’s emotional responses and/or the user’s ability to multitask, etc. However, none of the features above implements any new technological feature, much less an advanced one. This is because the process of: (a) presenting—via a GUI of a laptop—one or more interactive tasks (e.g., a school homework, games, etc.) to a user, (b) capturing, via one or more input devices (e.g., a camera, a keyboard, a microphone, etc.), relevant data related to the user (e.g., image of the face of user, alphanumerical data, vocal data); and subsequently (c) generating, based on the analysis of the collected data, one or more pertinent results (e.g., one or more scores and/or feedback signifying the user’s performance; one or more results representing the user’s emotional sates), etc., is already part of the existing computer/network technology. Of course, the type of task(s) being presented to the user (e.g., school homework, game, etc.), and/or the type of result(s) being estimated regarding the user (e.g., score data, emotional data), may differ from one system to another; however, such differences do not necessarily signify a technological difference; rather, they are merely signifying the differences in the objectives.
The observation above demonstrates that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure, when considered as a whole, is implementing any technological feature—or any combination of features—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology (i.e., neither the claimed system/method nor the disclosed system/method provides any technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology). Instead, the claimed—and disclosed—system/method is utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea (e.g., see the abstract idea identified under Prong One). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, regarding Step 2B, Applicant is asserting that “the ordered combination of limitations of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 add specific limitations that are improvements beyond what is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field . . . amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of systems and ordered combination of limitations above and beyond any alleged abstract idea . . . the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Patent Office provides no evidence that demonstrates otherwise for the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Indeed, the Specification describes the technical improvements over conventional approaches . . . amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an inventive concept and should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101” (emphasis added).
However, here also Applicant appears to rely on various conclusory assertions to substantiate the alleged inventive concept that the current claims are supposedly implementing. For instance, Applicant fails to show whether any of the current claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. In contrast, given the features that the current claims are implementing, including the originally disclosed features, the claimed (and also the disclosed) system/method is directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. In particular, as already discussed above, the currently claimed (and the originally disclosed) system/method is utilizing a commercially available conventional computing device—such as a smartphone or a laptop—to facilitate the process of: (a) presenting—via a GUI of a laptop—one or more interactive tasks (e.g., a game, etc.) to a user, (b) capturing, via one or more input devices (e.g., a camera, a microphone, etc.), relevant data related to the user (e.g., image of the user, verbal response of the user); and subsequently (c) generating, based on the analysis of the collected data, one or more pertinent results, etc. Of course, the computer system above may obtain the game data from its local storage or from a remote server (as implied per each of claims 4, 11 and 18). However, even when considering the optional claimed feature that contemplates the process of loading the game interface from a remote server, it is merely signifying the conventional client-server architecture, which allows the device (e.g., the laptop) to communicate—via the Internet or Intranet—with a remote service provider/server and download—and/or interact with—game features.
Of course, the original disclosure already confirms the above fact (see [0038], emphasis added),
“. . . system 310 and/or remote server 320 can host one or more websites and/or mobile application servers. For example, system 310 and/or remote server 320 can host a website, or provide a server that interfaces with an application (e.g., a mobile application or a web browser), on user device 350, which can allow users to download gaming interfaces and/or interact with (e.g., play, configure, pause, etc.) gaming interfaces (downloaded or executed on system 310 and/or remote server 320) configured to determine the users' gaming performance associated with cognitive factors, in addition to other suitable activities. In some embodiments, an internal network (e.g., computer network 340) that is not open to the public can be used for communications between system 310 and remote server 320 and/or user device 350 within system 300”
The observations above confirm that each of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is indeed directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (hereinafter WRCA) in the art. It is also worth noting that the WRCA test is concerned with the technology that the claim is implementing, but not the abstract idea.
In addition, unlike Applicant’s conclusory assumption, the office action already provides evidence, which demonstrates why each of the claims is directed to WRCA. In particular, besides pointing out pertinent sections from the specification that confirm the conventional computer/network technology being implemented, the office action also cites exemplary references that confirm the conventional computer/network technology that the current claims are implementing (e.g., see pages 5 to 6 of the office action dated 04/07/2026; also see above the current analysis presented under Step 2B). Consequently, Applicant’s allegation, “[t]he Patent Office provides no evidence that demonstrates otherwise for the specific ordered combination of limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15” (emphasis added), is certainly not valid.
Note also that the section (i.e., [0019]), which Applicant identified from the specification, has nothing to do with technological improvement. This is because it is merely describing the use of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, customizing the gaming interface based on data specific to the user (e.g., the user’s demographic and/or geographic data); and thereby, utilizing it to evaluate the cognitive skills/functions of the user. Of course, such use of the conventional technology may be more accurate—and also be free from bias—when compared with a manual process; such as: (i) one that relies on a self-reporting or a categorical approach to predict the user’s cognitive functions based on the user’s judgment or age; and/or (ii) one that relies on monitoring the user's driving performance for a period of time after an insurance policy or a driver's license is renewed. However, regardless of the alleged benefit above, such perspective has nothing to do with demonstrating a technological improvement (if any) that the claimed (or the disclosed) system/method is implementing. This is because a technological improvement (if any) is demonstrated by comparing two technologies (e.g., by comparing the claimed technology to the existing computer/network technology), but not by comparing the claimed technology to a manual process.
Of course, the same is true whether a computer-based system is utilized to facilitate (a) the above self-reporting or categorical approach, and/or (b) the monitoring of the user’s driving performance for a period of time. This is because the paragraph ([0019]) is merely comparing different approaches that may be used to evaluate the user; namely: (i) one that relies on one or more game scenarios to evaluate the user’s cognitive skills, and (ii) one that relies on (a) self-reporting or categorical approach to predict the user’s cognitive skills, or (b) monitoring the user’s driving performance for a period of time. However, regardless of how different the first strategy (the one that uses game scenarios) is from the second strategy (e.g., the one that relies on: self-reporting or categorical approach, or the monitoring of the user’s driving performance), the above is merely signifying the differences in the evaluation strategies (abstract idea), but not necessarily a technological improvement. If anything, Applicant appears to be mistaking the abstract idea for a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note that, regarding the dependent claims (claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20), Applicant is relying on the arguments presented above with respect to the independent claims; and therefore, the analysis presented above already applies to each of the dependent claims.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19 and 20 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 2021/0082306 in view of Kibar 2004/0210159.
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches the following claimed limitations: a method being implemented via execution of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media,
the method comprising (FIG 1, label “100”, which includes “102”, “120”, etc.: e.g., a computer-based system/method that comprises one or more client devices that communicate with at least one online server/database. Thus, the above already indicates the implementation of computing instructions configured to run on one or more processors and stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media): transmitting, to a user device of a user, a graphical user interface for display on the user device, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more activation controls for activating one or more gaming interfaces that comprise one or more visual prompts to cause one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces by the user ([0033]; [0035]; [0052]; [0054] lines 1-18; [0055]; [0056], lines 1-21: e.g., the user’s device, which is a client device in the form of a smartphone, a tablet or a laptop, receives one or more assessment modules/applications from the server/database; wherein such assessment modules/applications include at least one cognitive test for evaluating psychomotor control; and wherein the system presents to the user the cognitive test; such as, displaying—via a GUI—a game that involves one or more graphical objects, including one that the user is required to control; and the GUI further presents to the user one or more control buttons/elements, which the user uses for controlling the virtual object(s); and thus, as part of the assessment, the user is instructed to perform one or more tasks—such as: to maintain the virtual object within target area, to move the object erratically, etc.); upon determining that at least one of the one or more gaming interfaces is activated, receiving, from the user device, gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more cognitive factors for the user based on the gaming performance data, wherein the one or more cognitive factors comprise a multitasking factor ([0053]; [0054] lines 18-38; [0056]; [0070]: e.g., as the user is interacting with the game/assessment, the system gathers, by detecting one or more of the interactions/operations that the user is making via one or more control elements, one or more parameters for evaluating the user’s accuracy and speed of psychomotor compensation. Note that one or more of the games involve two or more actions that the user is required to perform simultaneously; such as, the game, which tests the user’s psychomotor control, requires the user to control two characters simultaneously; and this indicates a cognitive factor that involves multitasking. The system also analyzes various user performance data—such as: time to failure, rate of improvement over successive trials, etc., and thereby the system calculates a performance metric that represents the user’s performance); and generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the user based at least in part on the one or more cognitive factors, as determined ([0095]; [0099]: e.g., based on the analysis of the user’s performance, the system generates/displays one or more results; such as a graphical performance summary and/or one or more numerical scores; and wherein such results indicate whether the user is capable—or incapable—of safely performing a task; such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.).
Lewis does not expressly teach receiving, as part of the game performance data, emotional response of the user based at least (a) one or more images of the user taken by a camera of the user device and (b) one or more verbal comments of the user received by a computer.
However, Kibar teaches a computer-based system for determining a subject’s ability to perform a task based on measuring the subject’s cognitive state and emotional state ([0006]); wherein the implementation also involves recording, while presenting the subject with multimedia work that induces emotional and cognitive states, multiple modes of the subject’s responses—including: changes in the subject’s face, changes in the subject’s voice, changes in the content of the subject’s speech ([0013] to [0014]); and the recording devices include (a) at least one camera that captures one or more images of the user’s face ([0026]), and (b) a microphone that captures the user’s speech ([0027] lines 3-6); and accordingly, based on the analysis of image data captured via the camera and speech data captured via the microphone, the system generates one or more results that signify the subject’s emotional and cognitive sates ([0033]; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Lewis in view of Kibar; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that besides the inputs it receives from the user via one or more control buttons, it also captures additional user responses—including, (i) capturing one or more images of the user’s face using the camera on the user’s device, (ii) recording—via the microphone on the device—one or more words or phrases that the user is uttering, etc., and the system further utilizes such additional data, along with the interaction data gathered via one or more of the control buttons, to evaluate the user’s emotional and cognitive states; so that the system generates one or more comprehensive results that more accurately signify the user’s ability to properly and safely perform one or more tasks—such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Lewis teaches the following claimed limitations: a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when run on the one or more processors (FIG 1, labels “100”, “102”, “120”, etc.: e.g., a computer-based system that comprises one or more client devices that communicate with at least one online server/database. Thus, the above already indicates the implementation of a system that comprises various components; such as, one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions, which the one or more processors run/execute, etc.), cause the one or more processors to perform: transmitting, to a user device of a user, a graphical user interface for display on the user device, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more activation controls for activating one or more gaming interfaces that comprise one or more visual prompts to cause one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces by the user ([0033]; [0035]; [0052]; [0054] lines 1-18; [0055]; [0056] lines 1-21: e.g., the user’s device, which is a client device in the form of a smartphone, a tablet or a laptop, receives one or more assessment modules/applications from the server/database; wherein such assessment modules/applications include at least one cognitive test for evaluating psychomotor control; and wherein the system presents to the user the cognitive test; such as, displaying—via a GUI—a game that involves one or more graphical objects, including one that the user is required to control; and the GUI further presents to the user one or more control buttons/elements, which the user uses for controlling the virtual object(s); and thus, as part of the assessment, the user is instructed to perform one or more tasks—such as: to maintain the virtual object within target area, to move the object erratically, etc.); upon determining that at least one of the one or more gaming interfaces is activated, receiving, from the user device, gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more cognitive factors for the user based on the gaming performance data, wherein the one or more cognitive factors comprise a multitasking factor ([0053]; [0054] lines 18-38; [0056]; [0070]: e.g., as the user is interacting with the game/assessment, the system gathers, by detecting one or more of the interactions/operations that the user is making via one or more control elements, one or more parameters for evaluating the user’s accuracy and speed of psychomotor compensation. One or more of the games involve two or more actions that the user is required to perform simultaneously; such as, the game, which tests the user’s psychomotor control, requires the user to control two characters simultaneously; and this indicates a cognitive factor that involves multitasking. The system also analyzes various user performance data—such as: time to failure, rate of improvement over successive trials, etc., and thereby the system calculates a performance metric that represents the user’s performance); and generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the user based at least in part on the one or more cognitive factors, as determined ([0095]; [0099]: e.g., based on the analysis of the user’s performance, the system generates/displays one or more results; such as a graphical performance summary and/or one or more numerical scores; and wherein such results indicate whether the user is capable—or incapable—of safely performing a task; such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.).
Lewis does not expressly teach receiving, as part of the game performance data, emotional response of the user based at least (a) one or more images of the user taken by a camera of the user device and (b) one or more verbal comments of the user received by a computer.
However, Kibar teaches a computer-based system for determining a subject’s ability to perform a task based on measuring the subject’s cognitive state and emotional state ([0006]); wherein the implementation also involves recording, while presenting the subject with multimedia work that induces emotional and cognitive states, multiple modes of the subject’s responses—including: changes in the subject’s face, changes in the subject’s voice, changes in the content of the subject’s speech ([0013] to [0014]); and the recording devices include (a) at least one camera that captures one or more images of the user’s face ([0026]), and (b) a microphone that captures the user’s speech ([0027] lines 3-6); and accordingly, based on the analysis of image data captured via the camera and speech data captured via the microphone, the system generates one or more results that signify the subject’s emotional and cognitive sates ([0033]; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Lewis in view of Kibar; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that besides the inputs it receives from the user via one or more control buttons, it also captures additional user responses—including, (i) capturing one or more images of the user’s face using the camera on the user’s device, (ii) recording—via the microphone on the device—one or more words or phrases that the user is uttering, etc., and the system further utilizes such additional data, along with the interaction data gathered via one or more of the control buttons, to evaluate the user’s emotional and cognitive states; so that the system generates one or more comprehensive results that more accurately signify the user’s ability to properly and safely perform one or more tasks—such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Lewis teaches the following claimed limitations: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, the computing instructions, when run on one or more processors (FIG 1, label “100”, which includes “102”, “120”, etc.: e.g., a computer-based system that comprises one or more client devices that communicate with at least one online server/database. Thus, the above already indicates the implementation of non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computing instructions, which one or more processors run/execute), causing the one or more processors to perform: transmitting, to a user device of a user, a graphical user interface for display on the user device, wherein the graphical user interface comprises one or more activation controls for activating one or more gaming interfaces that comprise one or more gaming controls associated with one or more visual prompts to cause one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces by the user ([0033]; [0035]; [0052]; [0054] lines 1-18; [0055]; [0056], lines 1-21: e.g., the user’s device, which is a client device in the form of a smartphone, a tablet or a laptop, receives one or more assessment modules/applications from the server/database; wherein such assessment modules/applications include at least one cognitive test for evaluating psychomotor control; and wherein the system presents to the user the cognitive test; such as, displaying—via a GUI—a game that involves one or more graphical objects, including one that the user is required to control; and the GUI further presents to the user one or more control buttons/elements, which the user uses for controlling the virtual object(s); and thus, as part of the assessment, the user is instructed to perform one or more tasks—such as: to maintain the virtual object within target area, to move the object erratically, etc.); upon determining that at least one of the one or more gaming interfaces is activated, receiving, from the user device, gaming performance data associated with the one or more user interactions; determining, by the one or more processors, one or more cognitive factors for the user based on the gaming performance data, wherein the one or more cognitive factors comprise a multitasking factor ([0053]; [0054] lines 18-38; [0056]; [0070]: e.g., as the user is interacting with the game/assessment, the system gathers, by detecting one or more of the interactions/operations that the user is making via one or more control elements, one or more parameters for evaluating the user’s accuracy and speed of psychomotor compensation. One or more of the games involve two or more actions that the user is required to perform simultaneously; such as, the game, which tests the user’s psychomotor control, requires the user to control two characters simultaneously; and this indicates a cognitive factor that involves multitasking. The system analyzes various user performance data—such as: time to failure, rate of improvement over successive trials, etc., and thereby the system calculates a performance metric that represents the user’s performance); and generating, by the one or more processors, an output associated with the user based at least in part on the one or more cognitive factors, as determined ([0095]; [0099]: e.g., based on the analysis of the user’s performance, the system generates/displays one or more results; such as a graphical performance summary and/or one or more numerical scores; and wherein such results indicate whether the user is capable—or incapable—of safely performing a task; such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.).
Lewis does not expressly teach receiving, as part of the game performance data, emotional response of the user based at least (a) one or more images of the user taken by a camera of the user device and (b) one or more verbal comments of the user received by a computer.
However, Kibar teaches a computer-based system for determining a subject’s ability to perform a task based on measuring the subject’s cognitive state and emotional state ([0006]); wherein the implementation also involves recording, while presenting the subject with multimedia work that induces emotional and cognitive states, multiple modes of the subject’s responses—including: changes in the subject’s face, changes in the subject’s voice, changes in the content of the subject’s speech ([0013] to [0014]); and the recording devices include (a) at least one camera that captures one or more images of the user’s face ([0026]), and (b) a microphone that captures the user’s speech ([0027] lines 3-6); and accordingly, based on the analysis of image data captured via the camera and speech data captured via the microphone, the system generates one or more results that signify the subject’s emotional and cognitive sates ([0033]; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Lewis in view of Kibar; for example, by upgrading the system’s algorithm, so that besides the inputs it receives from the user via one or more control buttons, it also captures additional user responses—including, (i) capturing one or more images of the user’s face using the camera on the user’s device, (ii) recording—via the microphone on the device—one or more words or phrases that the user is uttering, etc., and the system further utilizes such additional data, along with the interaction data gathered via one or more of the control buttons, to evaluate the user’s emotional and cognitive states; so that the system generates one or more comprehensive results that more accurately signify the user’s ability to properly and safely perform one or more tasks—such as, operating a motor vehicle, etc.
Lewis in view of Kibar teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per each of the independent claims (i.e., claim 1, 8 and 15). Lewis further teaches:
Regarding each of claims 2, 9 and 16, at least one gaming interface of the one or more gaming interfaces is configured to (a) display at least one visual prompt of the one or more visual prompts in a random manner on the at least one gaming interface, and (b) detect a response time, by the user, associated with the at least one visual prompt ([0052] lines 19-35; [0053] to [0055]: e.g., the system already displays to the user at least one virtual object—i.e., the visual prompt; and the system randomly moves the object in one or more linear or non-linear directions; and thereby, as the user is providing one or more inputs in an attempt to maintain the object in its target area, the system evaluates the accuracy and speed of the user’s input, etc.); and the random manner comprises one or more of a random location, a random visual appearance, a random count of stimuli of the at least one visual prompt, or a random sequence of the stimuli ([0052] lines 19-35; [0055]: e.g., the random manner comprises at least a random location since the virtual object, which is the visual prompt, is randomly moving in one or more linear or non-linear directions);
Regarding each of claims 5, 12 and 19, before receiving the gaming performance data, receiving, in real-time from the user device, the one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces ([0052]; [0054]; [0056]: e.g., the system determines or calculates one or more performance parameters—such as, the time to failure, the rate of improvement, etc., based on the operations that the user has performed using one or more of the control buttons/elements on the GUI; and therefore, prior to receiving the gaming performance data, the system first receives—in real-time from the user device—the one or more user interactions with the one or more gaming interfaces);
Regarding each of claims 6 and 13, the gaming performance data comprises one or more of: a reaction time, a correctness indication, a number of trials, a type of the user device, a focus span, or a frequency of presenting the one or more visual prompts ([0053]; [0054]; [0056] lines 21-31: e.g., the system is evaluating various types of performance parameters, including rate of improvement over the course of successive trails, which represents at least a number of trails);
Regarding each of claims 7 and 14, the one or more cognitive factors are predetermined to be related to driving performance of a vehicle; or the output comprises a discount value for an insurance policy of the user ([0046] lines 1-14; [0054]: e.g., the system already provides to the user one or more cognitive tests pertinent to evaluate the user’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle—such as, the exemplary game that requires the user to maintain a virtual car in its lane and/or maintain the car to the right of a double yellow line, etc.; and therefore, the one or more cognitive factors are predetermined to be related to driving performance of a vehicle);
Regarding claim 20, the gaming performance data comprises one or more of: a reaction time, a correctness indication, a number of trials, a type of the user device, a focus span, an emotional response, or a frequency of presenting the one or more visual prompts ([0053]; [0054]; [0056] lines 21-31: e.g., the system is evaluating various types of performance parameters, including rate of improvement over the course of successive trails, which represents at least a number of trails); the one or more cognitive factors are predetermined to be related to driving performance; or the output comprises a discount value for an insurance policy of the user ([0046] lines 1-14; [0054]: e.g., the system already provides to the user one or more cognitive tests pertinent to evaluate the user’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle—such as, the exemplary game that requires the user to maintain a virtual car in its lane and/or maintain the car to the right of a double yellow line, etc.; and therefore, the one or more cognitive factors are predetermined to be related to driving performance of a vehicle).
● Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lewis 2021/0082306 in view of Kibar 2004/0210159 and in view of Busse 2009/0131152.
Regarding each of claims 3, 10 and 17, Lewis in view of Kibar teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Lewis does not teach the process of determining, before transmitting the graphical user interface for display on the user device, the one or more gaming interfaces from one or more available gaming interfaces based at least in part on demographic information or geographic information associated with the user.
However, Busse teaches a system/method for performance tracking, wherein the system provides a user with one or more games in order to assess the user’s abilities ([0038]); and wherein the system selects one or more relevant games to the user based on the user’s profile, which includes one or more attributes specific to the user—such as, demographics that includes: the user’s age, the user’s gender, the user’s location of residence and/or zip code, etc. ([0075]; [0076]).
Accordingly, giving the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Lewis in view of Busse; for example, by incorporating an option that allows the user to provide profile data—such as, the user’s age, the user’s gender, and/or the user’s geographic location, etc., and wherein the system algorithm is further upgraded to consider one or more attributes in the user’s profile when selecting one or more of the games to be presented to the user, etc., so that the user would be able to interact with one or more games that are more consistent with his/her demographics; and this increases the user’s interest in playing more games, etc.
Regarding each of claims 4, 11, and 18, Lewis in view of Kibar teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Although Lewis already teaches one or more of: transmitting, to the user device, an activated gaming interface of the one or more gaming interfaces for display on the user device; or causing the user device to load the activated gaming interface from (a) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium of the user device, or (b) a remote
server for display on the user device ([0035]; [0052]; [0054]: e.g., the server already executes sone or more modules of the game application; and thereby provides one or more user interfaces with one or more controlling buttons/elements, which the user is manipulating to perform a task according to one or more game instructions; such as, the user manipulates one or more buttons to maintain the virtual object in its target area, and/or the user moves the virtual object erratically, etc.), Lewis does not expressly describe receiving, from the user device, an activation command associated with the one or more activation controls; and upon determining, based on the activation command, that at least an activated activation control of the one or more activation controls is activated.
However, given the system of Lewis, which includes the implementation of at least one user device in the form of a smartphone or a tablet computer, etc. ([0033] lines 1-7), wherein the user device communicates with an online server/database; so that the sever provides to the user—via the user’s device—one or more cognitive assessments/games—such as, an interface displaying one or more virtual objects, including one or more control buttons/elements, etc. ([0035]; [0043]; [0052]), it is understood that Lewis system already incorporates—at least implicitly—an activation command (e.g., a selection of a particular game, etc.), which the user triggers in order to access the game from the server or his device.
Nevertheless, Busse teaches a system/method for performance tracking, wherein the system provides a user with one or more games in order to assess the user’s abilities ([0038]); and wherein such games are presented to the user, via the user’s device, in response to the user activating a main menu via its corresponding button, and/or downloading the game from server and subsequently selecting the desired game, etc. ([0102]; [0107]; [0110]).
Accordingly, it would have still been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Lewis in view of Busse; for example, by incorporating one or more options for acquiring one or more games; such as, option, such as a main menu with one or more corresponding buttons, wherein the main menu allows the user to easily download one from the server one or more games that are relevant to his/her condition; so that, the user would have additional flexibility to interact with one or more games at one or more times that are convenient to the user, etc.
Response to Arguments.
7. Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior art have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/25/2026). Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amendment made to the current claims.
However, new ground of rejection is presented in this current office action due to the current amendment. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
8. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights