DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 21-32, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 21 and 37 recites a method comprising:
receiving a selection of a target behavior;
receiving an image of a stimulus object;
constructing a visual representation of a user environment;
sending the representation to a user;
receiving an engagement with the visual representation;
determining a level of the engagement; and
based on the level of engagement;
constructing a modified visual representation; and
sending the modified visual representation to the user.
The limitations of receiving a selection and an image, constructing and sending a representation, receiving and determining a level of engagement, and constructing and sending a modified visual representation, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the method is computer-implemented utilizing a user electronic computing device to receive the inputs and provide the visual representations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “user electronic computing device” language, “receiving”, “constructing”, “sending” and “determining” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually receiving selections and engagements, determining a level of engagement, and constructing visual representations, for example by interacting with a person and providing the visual representations using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a user electronic computing device to perform the claimed steps. The device in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing generic computer functions of receiving selections and engagements, and displaying visual representations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing device to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-32 and 36 recite the same abstract idea as in claim 21, and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. Claims 22 and 23 recite utilizing generic AI/ML models to determine levels of engagement, which amounts to no more than implementation of a mathematical model on a generic computer. Claims 24-32 and 36 further recite receiving inputs to the generic computing device, making determinations, and displaying further visual representations via the computing device, which is not sufficient to direct the claimed abstract idea to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 21-25, 28-32, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofler (US 2007/0184421 A1) in view of Clevenger et al. (US 2020/0090542 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 37, Tofler discloses a computer-implemented method (as per claim 1), and system (as per claim 37) for training a user on a target behavior, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user electronic computing device, a selection of the target behavior (step 110 – identify behavior requiring modification in an individual – Par. 16);
receiving, from the user electronic computing device, a photograph or a digital image of a stimulus object (stimulus object such as visual representation of one or more other individual’s – Par. 17);
constructing, based on the selection of the target behavior and the photograph or the digital image of the stimulus object, a visual representation of a user environment, wherein the visual representation of the user environment includes an image of the stimulus object and an image of the user (Par. 16 – visual representation of individual superimposed over the character/stimulus); and
sending, to the user electronic computing device, the visual representation of the user environment, thereby causing the visual representation to be displayed on a display device of the user electronic computing device (step 140 – presentation is screened to individual – Par. 16);
Tofler does not appear to disclose receiving an engagement with the visual representation displayed on the display device of the user electronic computing device;
determining a level of the engagement; and based on the level of the engagement: constructing a modified visual representation of the user environment, the modified visual representation of the user environment including the image of the user; and
sending, to the user electronic computing device, the modified visual representation of the user environment thereby causing the modified visual representation of the user environment to be displayed on the display device of the user electronic computing device.
However, Clevenger discloses a similar behavior modification system that presents a visual representation of a character to a user in an environment, determining a level of user engagement, modifies the representations, and sends the modified representation to the user (see Par. 23-24 – character module displays character, processes image of user to determine engagement, and select different virtual characters or character actions in response to the engagement). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Tofler by altering the visual representation based on level of engagement, as taught by Clevenger. Such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way.
Regarding claims 22-25, 28, 30-32 and 36, Tofler in view of Clevenger further discloses:
determining the level of the engagement is performed using artificial intelligence (as per claim 22), and determining the level of the engagement is performed using one or more machine learning models (Clevenger, Par’s. 21, 24) (as per claim 23),
the level of the engagement is determined based on one or more mouse clicks or one or more touch inputs (touch inputs – Clevenger, Par. 44) (as per claim 24),
the level of the engagement is based on historical data related to an element of the visual representation of the user environment (Clevenger – tracking of successful/unsuccessful engagement – Par. 24) (as per claim 25),
the modified visual representation of the user environment includes another stimulus object that is different from the stimulus object (Clevenger – different character – Par. 24) (as per claim 28),
a first prompt to engage the visual representation of the user environment is provided that is different from a second prompt to engage the modified visual representation of the user environment (Clevenger, e.g. different character prompt – Par’s. 17, 24) (as per claim 30),
one of the first prompt and the second prompt is a text prompt and the other of the first prompt and the second prompt is an audio prompt (Clevenger, Par. 17) (as per claim 31),
constructing the modified visual representation of the user environment includes removing an image of one or more objects from the visual representation of the user environment (Clevenger, Par. 24 – if user is not engaged, character is removed and replaced) (as per claim 32), and
constructing the visual representation of the user environment includes overlaying the image of the stimulus object and the image of the user over an image of a real-life environment; wherein the image of the user is generated from one or more photographs or digital images of the user; wherein the image of the stimulus object is generated from the photograph or the digital image of the stimulus object; and wherein the image of the real-life environment is generated from one or more photographs or digital images of the real-life environment (Tofler, Par’s. 16-17) (as per claim 36).
Regarding claim 29, to the extent that the combination of Tofler and Clevenger does not disclose the another stimulus object appears larger than the stimulus object, these differences (the substance of the content being displayed) are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and do not alter how the display functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the display). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to display any type of data according to the user’s engagement, because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
6. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tofler (US 2007/0184421 A1) in view of Clevenger et al. (US 2020/0090542 A1), and further in view of Adams (US 2017/0358232 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Tofler and Clevenger does not appear to disclose the historical data includes a lack of interaction with the visual representation of the user environment for at least a predefined threshold amount of time. However, Adams discloses tracking engagement and lack of engagement of a student over a predefined threshold amount of time (see Par. 53). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Tofler and Clevenger by changing the display based on lack of engagement over a predefined threshold amount of time, as suggested by Adams, to obtain predictable results of establishing a baseline acceptable period of time lack of engagement.
Regarding claim 27, Clevenger further discloses the element includes one of a prompt and the stimulus object (character – Par. 24).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 33-35 and 38-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding section § 101, the additional limitations in claims 33 and 38 of determining a sequence of steps, generating a behavioral video clip, receiving a selection, and sending the behavior video clip, in combination with the limitations of parent claims 21 and 37, are sufficient to direct the claims to significantly more than an abstract idea. The combination of limitations as a whole, including generating and providing particular behavioral video clips in response to user inputs in accordance with a sequence of steps for the target behavior, could not be performed in the human mind, and applies the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding the prior art, the combination of Tofler and Clevenger does not disclose determining a sequence of steps for the behavior, generating a behavioral video clip, receiving a selection of the stimulus object, and sending the behavioral clip. Katz (US Patent No. 8,393,904 B2), the other closest art of record, discloses providing behavioral video clips based on a sequence of steps for a target behavior, but does not disclose generating a video clip including a visualization of only a subset of the steps, receiving a selection of the stimulus object via a prompt of the visual representation, and sending the behavioral clip, as claimed. Accordingly, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not disclose the combination of limitations of claims 33 and 38.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alyuz Civitci et al. (US Patent No. 11,908,345 B2) discloses engagement level determination and dissemination.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights