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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06 August 2025, wherein:
Claims 1-12 and 15 are amended.
Claims 13 and 14 are original.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 28 June 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, the citation of the non-patent literature document includes a check mark in the box indicating a copy with an English language translation is filed. However, the filed document is not translated into the English language.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(f) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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:
“an input module configured to receive a response of the trainee” in claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, how a processor is configured to: configure game content. In particular, the language “configured to configure” is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “configured to configure” is construed as redundant such that these limitations are construed as the “processor configures”. Dependent claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, it is unclear how the first training task “provides brain stimulation to a specific brain area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain”. This limitation is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect causing it to be unclear what is stimulated. Similarly, “overall areas of the brain” is also grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. It is also odd and obtuse language leading one of ordinary skill in the art to not understand what part(s) of the brain is/are “overall areas” such that is unclear which part of the brain is stimulated. Furthermore, it is unclear how brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 1 and 8 each recite the limitation "the overall area" at the end of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 9 each recite the limitation "the symptom" in the last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claims 2 and 9, it is unclear how a story corresponds to the disease information and/or the symptom information of the trainee when health status information, as claimed, includes embodiments of only disease information, only symptom information, or only age information of the trainee. In other words, claimed embodiments are the health status information includes (1) disease information of the trainee; (2) symptom information of the trainee; (3) age information of the trainee; (4) disease information and symptom information of the trainee; (5) disease information and age information of the trainee; (6) disease information, symptom information, and age information of the trainee; and (7) symptom information and age information of the trainee. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that only embodiments (4) and (6) can apply as they are the only embodiments that include the disease and the symptom of the trainee in the health status information. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how a story corresponds to the disease and/or the symptom of the trainee in embodiments (1)-(3), (5), and (7) because elements (either a disease or a symptom) are missing from the health status information. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Claims 3 and 10 each recite the limitation "the first training task configured to stimulate the specific area of the brain, corresponding to a specific disease or a specific symptom". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, while there is sufficient antecedent basis for "the first training task configured to stimulate the specific area of the brain”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the first training task configured to stimulate the specific area of the brain, corresponding to a specific disease or a specific symptom”.
Further regarding claims 3 and 10, it is unclear what is “corresponding to a specific disease or a specific symptom” because a comma has been added preceding this limitation which disconnects it from the rest of the claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, it is unclear what is “based on a disease and/or a symptom” because a comma has been added preceding this limitation which disconnects it from the rest of the claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, it is unclear how a second training task is “configured to stimulate to the overall areas of the brain”. This limitation is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect causing it to be unclear what is stimulated. In particular, as identified with respect to claims 1 and 8, “overall areas of the brain” is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. It is also odd and obtuse language leading one of ordinary skill in the art to not understand what part(s) of the brain is/are “overall areas” such that is unclear which part of the brain is stimulated. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "selecting first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among a pieces of multimedia content that are previously presented” as the second limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, the claim is silent regarding any previous presentation of multimedia content. Thus, it is unclear how first multimedia content can be select from multimedia content that are previously presented when no multimedia content has been presented. Dependent claims 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 8, it is unclear what constitutes “a pieces of multimedia content that are previously provided”. The term “a” is meant for singular nouns. However, “pieces” is plural. It is unclear whether this is meant to be a single piece or multiple pieces. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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 claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processor configured to: select first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among the pieces of multimedia content” in claim 1 and “wherein the health status information includes at least one of disease information, symptom information, and age information of the trainee, and wherein the processor is further configured to: select the first multimedia content including a story corresponding to the disease information and/or the symptom information of the trainee” in claim 2, “selecting first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among a pieces of multimedia content that are previously provided” in claim 8, and “wherein the health status information includes at least one of disease information, symptom information, and age information of the trainee, and wherein the selecting of the first multimedia content comprises: selecting the first multimedia content including a story corresponding to the disease information and/or the symptom information of the trainee” in claim 9 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). See, for example, at least para. 48, 53, 54, and 77 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processor configured to:… select a first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content among the plurality of training tasks” in claim 1, “the processor is further configured to: select the first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content by using matching information obtained by matching the pieces of multimedia content with the plurality of training tasks based on a disease and/or a symptom” in claim 4, “selecting a first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content among a plurality of training tasks” in claim 8, and “wherein the selecting of the first training task comprises: selecting the first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content by using matching information obtained by matching the pieces of multimedia content with the plurality of training tasks based on a disease and/or a symptom” in claim 11 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). See, for example, at least para. 48, 55-57, and 79 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processor configured to:… configure game content by placing the first training task in the first multimedia content” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). See, for example, at least para. 48, 58, and 82 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding “the processor is configured to:… configure the game content by placing the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain” in claim 1 and “configuring game content by placing the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain” in claim 8. There are two statutory provisions that prohibit the introduction of new matter. The first provision is 35 USC 132, which provides that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 USC 112(a) – written description requirement. See MPEP 2163.06. The closest disclosure is found in para. 58, 60, 65, 82, and 91 which recite that a training is placed either “between pieces of multimedia content” or “between stories”. This is particularly different from “in a middle of the first multimedia content”. Thus, this is new matter. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1 and 8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processor configured to:… perform a cognitive training operation by outputting the game content through the display module” in claim 1 and “performing a cognitive training operation by outputting the game content through a display module of the apparatus” in claim 8 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). 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. In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 44 and 46-48 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description for “performing a cognitive training operation”. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1 and 8, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding the newly added language “wherein the processor is further configured to:… perform cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area by providing the game content” in claim 1 and “performing a cognitive training operation that provides cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area” in claim 8. There are two statutory provisions that prohibit the introduction of new matter. The first provision is 35 USC 132, which provides that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 USC 112(a) – written description requirement. See MPEP 2163.06. The closest disclosure is found in para. 60 and 91 of the specification which each recite the apparatus “may use the game content of cross-stimulation in which a training task providing brain stimulation of a specific area is placed between stories that provide overall brain stimulation of the trainee, thereby increasing the cognitive training effect of the trainee.” This is particularly different from “perform cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area by providing the game content” and “performing a cognitive training operation that provides cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area”. Thus, this is new matter. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, and 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain” in claim 1, “the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain” in claim 8, and “wherein the plurality of training tasks include the first training task configured to stimulate the specific area of the brain, corresponding to a specific disease or a specific symptom” in claims 3 and 10 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). 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. See, for example, at least para. 47, 55, 56, 60, 65, 67-70, and 91 which recite the most closely related disclosure yet fail to provide any meaningful description for the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. The specification is also silent regarding any meaningful disclosure for correlating and selecting any training task to stimulating a specific area of the brain as well as silent regarding any description for correlating and selecting any training task for any specific disease or symptom. For instance, para. 55 recites, in results-based language, “[f]or example, a training task corresponding to memory decline may consist of cognitive training that stimulates an area (e.g., a temporal lobe) of a brain that controls memory” and para. 56 recites, in results-based language, “the matching information may be obtained by matching the multimedia content having a story corresponding to a stroke with the training task such as N-back tests, climbing stairs, finding directions, purchasing items, or the like.” Similarly, para. 67 of the specification recites that “Fig. 5 is a diagram for describing a specific area brain stimulation training task”. However, Fig. 5 is merely a screenshot of a set of stairs with the sentence “I have to climb stairs to get to the cockpit!” above it. In other words, Fig. 5 is silent regarding “describing a specific area brain stimulation training task”. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, and 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the processor is further configured to: configure the game content by placing the first training task… in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain” in claim 1, “configuring game content by placing the first training task… in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain” in claim 8, and “wherein the plurality of training tasks include a second training task configured to stimulate the overall areas of the brain” in claims 5 and 12 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In addition to the new matter of “placing the first training task in a middle of the first multimedia content”, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function for providing “brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain”. See, for example, at least para. 47, 54, 60, 64-66, and 91 which recite the most closely related disclosure yet fail to provide any meaningful description for the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. For instance, para. 64 of the specification recites that “Fig. 4 is a diagram illustrating an overall brain stimulation training task”. However, Fig. 4 is merely a screenshot of a hand holding a keycard with the sentence “I need a card key to enter the spaceship” above it. In other words, Fig. 4 is silent regarding “illustrating an overall brain stimulation training task”. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, and 14, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the processor is further configured to: adjust difficulty of at least one of the plurality of training tasks” in claim 6, “the processor is further configured to: adjust difficulty of next cognitive training based on a result of previous cognitive training of the trainee” in claim 7, “adjusting difficulty of at least one of the plurality of training tasks” in claim 13, and “adjusting difficulty of next cognitive training based on a result of previous cognitive training of the trainee” in claim 14 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). 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. See, for example, at least para. 48, 71-74, 86, and 87 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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 products and a method which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A cognitive training providing apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a display module;
a memory configured to store health status information of a trainee, pieces of multimedia content, and a plurality of training tasks; and
an input module configured to receive a response of the trainee;
a processor configured to:
select first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among the pieces of multimedia content;
select a first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content among the plurality of training tasks;
configure game content by placing the first training task in the first multimedia content; and
perform a cognitive training operation by outputting the game content through the display module,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
configure the game content by placing the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain; and
perform cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area by providing the game content.
Independent claim 8 recites:
A cognitive training providing method performed by a processor of an apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining health status information of a trainee;
selecting first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among a pieces of multimedia content that are previously provided;
selecting a first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content among a plurality of training tasks;
configuring game content by placing the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain; and
performing a cognitive training operation that provides cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area by outputting the game content through a display module of the apparatus.
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) by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. This also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
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: a cognitive training providing apparatus (claim 1), a display module (claims 1 and 8), a memory (claim 1), an input module (claim 1), a processor (claims 1 and 8), an apparatus (claim 8), and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program (claim 15). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed. For example, Fig. 1 illustrates the elements as non-descript black boxes, while at least para. 26-51 and 93-96 of the specification provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement. This also evidences that the computer components 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. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computing device and associated hardware does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 224-26 (2014). The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. See, for example, Fig. 1 and at least para. 26-51 and 93-96 of the specification. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. In particular, the claims are silent regarding any specific treatment or prophylaxis for any specific disease or medical condition. For instance, claims 2 and 9 recite “wherein the health status information includes at least one of disease information, symptom information, and age information of the trainee, and… selecting the first multimedia content including a story corresponding to the disease information and/or the symptom information of the trainee” and claims 3 and 10 recite “wherein the plurality of training tasks include the first training task configured to stimulate the specific area of the brain, corresponding to a specific disease or a specific symptom” while claims 4 and 11 recite “selecting the first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content by using matching information obtained by matching the pieces of multimedia content with the plurality of training tasks based on a disease and/or a symptom”. None of these claim limitations amount to, let alone recite, a specific treatment or prophylaxis for any disease or medical condition. Mere claiming that it occurs is not in and of itself a treatment or prophylaxis, let alone a specific treatment or prophylaxis. 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 identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs 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 claims recite computer components associated with performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., storing, processing, and outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. For instance, Fig. 1 merely illustrates the elements with non-descript black boxes, and at least para. 26-51 and 93-96 of the specification identify that the claimed invention may be implemented with any type of hardware and/or software. This also evidences that the computer components 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. Also, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. None of the recited 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. 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gazzaley (US 2017/0229037).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Gazzaley teaches a cognitive training providing apparatus (claim 1) and a cognitive training providing method performed by a processor of an apparatus (claim 8), the method comprising:
obtaining health status information of a trainee (Gazzaley, para. 4, “the subject has a cognitive disorder... In other aspects, the subject is a healthy subject.” Para. 5, “the subject is from an age group selected from preschool, middle childhood, young teen, teenager, younger adult, middle-age adult, and older adult.”);
selecting first multimedia content corresponding to the health status information among a pieces of multimedia content that are previously provided (Gazzaley, para. 5, “the methods enhance cognition in the subject (e.g., a healthy subject or a subject having a cognitive disorder).” Para. 6, “Also provided are methods of treating a cognitive disorder in a subject. The methods include presenting to a subject an embodied cognitive task that includes a cognitive component and a physical component, assessing the subject's performance on each of the cognitive component and the physical component, and adapting the difficulty level of the embodied cognitive task based on the subject 's performance on each of the cognitive component and the physical component, to treat the cognitive disorder.”);
selecting a first training task corresponding to the first multimedia content among a plurality of training tasks (Gazzaley, para. 59, “The methods of the present disclosure may include a step prior to the first presenting step. For example, where the method is carried out for the first time for a subject, the method may encompass a thresholding step, an assessment, instruction, and/or demonstration.” Para. 60, “A thresholding step includes presenting to a subject an embodied cognitive task in one or more trials. This thresholding step helps determine an initial performance level of the subject on the embodied cognitive task.”);
configuring game content by placing the first training task, which provides brain stimulation to a specific area of a brain, in a middle of the first multimedia content, which provides brain stimulation to overall areas of the brain (Gazzaley, para. 30, “the embodied cognitive task is presented to the subject in the form of a video game.” Para. 31 provides more detail on what elements of the video game include. Para. 54 discusses stimulus-response trials placement.); and
performing a cognitive training operation that provides cross-stimulation to the specific area and to the overall area by outputting the game content through a display module of the apparatus (Gazzaley, para. 30, “Embodied cognitive tasks presented in the form of a video game may be presented to the subject via a display component, e.g., a television, a monitor, a high-definition television (HDTV), a projection screen, a head-up display (HUD), or any other suitable display for presentation of the embodied cognitive task in the form of a video game.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Gazzaley teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein the health status information includes at least one of disease information (Gazzaley, para. 4, “the subject has a cognitive disorder... In other aspects, the subject is a healthy subject.”), symptom information (Gazzaley, para. 77, “the pre-training and post-training assessment includes tests that measure improvement on symptoms or functions relevant to a specific disease or condition.”), and age information of the trainee (Gazzaley, para. 5, “the subject is from an age group selected from preschool, middle childhood, young teen, teenager, younger adult, middle-age adult, and older adult.”), and
wherein the selecting of the first multimedia content comprises:
selecting the first multimedia content including a story corresponding to the disease information and/or the symptom information of the trainee (Gazzaley, para. 101, “The game unfolds with a story and challenge