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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered.
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 26 January 2026, wherein:
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-18 are amended.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are previously presented.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Double Patenting
While no double patenting rejections are currently identified, Applicant should remain cognizant of the claims in US Patent 11,969,555 when making any amendments in order to avoid any future double patenting issues. It is noted that the most recent amendments move the instant claims closer to those in US Patent 11,969,555.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “user selected” both with and without a hyphen. Uniformity is recommended.
The claims include improperly marked amendments. The proper marking for deleting 5 or fewer characters is using double brackets, not single brackets. As an alternative to using double brackets, however, extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 14 as). See MPEP 714.
Claim 1 recites an errant semi-colon preceding “including” in limitation (d).
Limitation (c) in claim 1 ends with a comma where it should end with a semi-colon.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the computing system" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-9 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for a computer to perform the steps of “(c) using the processor, configure the multi-sensory BLS session based on the received user input, including the user-selected object, the user-selected pattern, the user-selected background, the user-selected text message, the user-selected audio track, and the user-selected tactile input requirement” in claim 1 and “the user-selected object configured by the processor on the display screen moving in the configured user-selected pattern against the configured user-selected background” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 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 disclosure, at best, merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 9, 10, 16-21, 34, 72, 73, 81, 86-89, 94-97, 101-103, 107, 111, 118, 121, and 122 of the specification. For instance, para. 81 recites, in one of many instances throughout the specification, that the user configures the session, not the processor. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories. (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A multi-sensory bilateral stimulation (BLS) session method for a user using an electronic device having a processor, a display screen, an input device, a camera, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to:
(a) receive, via the input device, user input identifying a user-selected factor related to a problem or a goal;
(b) based on the user-selected factor, receive further user input selecting an object to be displayed on the display screen during the session, a pattern of motion for the object, a background, and one or more of a text message, an audio track, and whether a tactile input requirement is to be applied during the session;
(c) using the processor, configure the multi-sensory BLS session based on the received user input, including the user-selected object, the user-selected pattern, the user-selected background, the user-selected text message, the user-selected audio track, and the user-selected tactile input requirement, and
(d) provide the multi-sensory BLS session on the electronic device; including:
(i) displaying the configured user-selected object on the display screen moving in the configured user-selected pattern against the configured user-selected background;
(ii) presenting the user-selected text message and the user-selected audio track on the electronic device; and
(iii) if the tactile input requirement is selected, pausing until the user identifies a position of the object on the display screen using the input device.
Independent claim 10 recites:
An apparatus for providing a bilateral stimulation (BLS) session for a user, the apparatus comprising:
an electronic device including:
a memory;
a processor;
an input device;
a display screen; and
a camera;
wherein the processor is programmed to:
receive user input from the input device, identifying a user-selected factor related to a problem or a goal;
receive user input selecting a user-selected object related to the factor to be displayed on the display screen during the session;
receive user input selecting a pattern of motion for the object;
receive user input selecting a background;
receive user input from the input device selecting one or more of:
a text message;
an audio track; and
whether a tactile input requirement is to be applied during the session; and
provide the multi-sensory BLS session on the electronic device, the multi-sensory BLS session comprising:
displaying the user-selected object configured by the processor on the display screen moving in the configured user-selected pattern against the configured user-selected background;
if a text message is user-selected, displaying the user-selected text message on the display screen;
if an audio track is user-selected, playing the user-selected audio track on the electronic device; and
if the tactile input requirement is user-selected, requiring the user to indicate a position of the object on the display screen using the input device to continue the multi-sensory BLS session.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identify a process of providing a bilateral stimulation (BLS) session which, as claimed, merely amounts 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) because it merely describes the basic process of a BLS session between a therapist and a client.
This also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of a pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for 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: using an electronic device having a processor, a display screen, an input device, a camera, and memory storing instructions (claim 1); the computer device (claim 1); the Internet (claims 2, 5, 9, 11, 14, and 18); and an apparatus comprising an electronic device including a memory, a processor, an input device, a display screen, and a camera (claim 10). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed. See, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 2 which illustrate the components as non-descript black boxes or stock images in a conventional arrangement while the remaining figures identify only a software application. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 26-35 and 166-169. For instance, para. 28 identifies that “[o]ne embodiment of each of the methods described herein is in the form of a computer program that is stored in computer memory and which executes on a processing system, e.g., a one or more processors that are part of a networked system” indicating that the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, any particular machine or manufacture. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed steps are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of the computer system. The components, identified above, 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. This is evidenced by the absence of specificity of the components and their organization in the disclosure. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 2 and para. 26-35 and 166-169 of the specification as identified above. 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. 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. The claimed computerized elements are merely recited to be used, not improved. This is further evidenced by the preamble of claim 1 which explicitly identifies that the claimed method is merely for using the electronic device, in other words for using the electronic device to implement the judicial exception. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 1 above, the claimed steps merely describe the basic process of a BLS session between a therapist and a client which is at best merely a generalized approach, not a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition, particularly when the claimed BLS session is to address a non-descript “problem or goal”. 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 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. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this evidences that the 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, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. 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, see, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 2 and para. 26-35 and 166-169 of the specification as identified above. Viewed 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).
Therefore, 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gazit et al. (US 2020/0086077, hereinafter referred to as Gazit).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Gazit teaches a multi-sensory bilateral stimulation (BLS) session method for a user using an electronic device having a processor, a display screen, an input device, a camera, and memory storing instructions (claim 1) and an apparatus for providing a bilateral stimulation (BLS) session for a user, the apparatus comprising: an electronic device including: a memory; a processor; an input device a display screen; and a camera (claim 10) (Gazit, Abstract, “A system and methods for remote Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy”; para. 39, “The computing platforms typically also include input devices and output devices. Input devices of the platforms may include a mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen or pad or any suitable input, as well as a microphone and a camera to enable two-way video conferences. Output devices may include one or more displays or screens, speakers, headphones, and tactile output devices, such as tactile pulsers. The computing platforms also include wired or wireless network interface cards to facilitate remote communications.”), cause the computing system to:
(a) receive, via the input device, user input identifying a user-selected factor related to a problem or a goal (Gazit, para. 4, “Phase 1 includes history taking, during which the client presents his problems and clinically significant life events are identified. Fulfilling future goals are set.”);
(b) based on the user-selected factor, receive further user input selecting an object to be displayed on the display screen during the session (Gazit, para. 18, “visual element features including: color, opacity, size, shape, brightness, a movement mode, a height, a direction path, a tracking path, path end points, and a background color”), a pattern of motion for the object (Gazit, para. 18, “visual element features including:… a movement mode,… a direction path, a tracking path, path end points”), a background (Gazit, para. 18, “visual element features including:… a background color”), and one or more of a text message (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because it is claimed in the alternative.), an audio track (Gazit, para. 18, “audio element features including volume, a sound effect, and music”), and whether a tactile input requirement is to be applied during the session (Gazit, para. 18, “tactile element feature of a vibration intensity of the tactile element”);
(c) using the processor, configure the multi-sensory BLS session based on the received user input, including the user-selected object, the user-selected pattern, the user-selected background, the user-selected text message, the user-selected audio track, and the user-selected tactile input requirement (Gazit, “A ‘dashboard’ may be implemented as part of the same therapist application that presents the stimulation elements and the video chat, enabling the therapist to control parameters of bilateral stimulations. The parameters that may be controlled through the dashboard may include start and stop triggers for the BLS, a duration and a type of a bilateral stimulation, as well as any or all of the other aspects of the bilateral stimulations. The therapist typically sets these parameters to suit client preferences. Parameters are typically set before a set of bilateral stimulations begins, but they can also be changed during a stimulation activity when appropriate. That is, sometimes there is a need to change an EMDR set, that is, to change the predefined set of bilateral stimulations, according to client needs while a BLS activity is being conducted.”), and
(d) provide the multi-sensory BLS session on the electronic device (Gazit, para. 49, “During bilateral stimulation, visual, audio, and tactile elements are presented on the client platform 24.”); including:
(i) displaying the configured user-selected object on the display screen moving in the configured user-selected pattern against the configured user-selected background (Gazit, para. 49, “Visual elements are typically displayed on the client platform screen.”);
(ii) presenting the user-selected text message (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because it is claimed in the alternative.) and the user-selected audio track on the electronic device (Gazit, para. 49, “Audio elements are output from the client platform speakers (typically placed on either side of the client) or headphones, and may include music or sounds, which alternate between the speakers.”); and
(iii) if the tactile input requirement is selected, pausing the session until the user identifies a position of the object on the display screen using the input device (claim 10: to continue the multi-sensory BLS session) (Gazit, para. 49, “Tactile elements are output from devices that are meant to be touched by the client, such as a "tactile pulsers" that emit pulses of vibrations and which may be touched or held by the client (for example, strapped to each hand). The vibration pulses also alternate back-and-forth between the pulse devices. The tactile pulsers may be connected by USB or by Bluetooth to the client platform.” Para. 50, “The client and therapist applications present the visual, audio, and tactile elements at positions, and with features, that may be determined by EMDR messages delivered (i.e., ‘pushed’) synchronously to the client and therapist applications from the EMDR application over respective communications links 30 and 32.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user selected object includes:
accepting the user-selected object from a plurality of predetermined objects (Gazit, para. 88, “As shown in the figure, the visual element appears as a pair of neighboring LEDs. Alternatively, the system could be configured to display any type of image or icon. At the bottom of the therapist screen there are dashboard controls 310, which, as described above, can be used to change aspects of the visual element, such as its color, shape, and speed”); or
accepting the user-selected object from the camera (Gazit, para. 12, “One option is for the therapist to place a visual BLS generator tool in front of the web camera for a patient to view through the video chat.” Para. 88, “As shown in the figure, the visual element appears as a pair of neighboring LEDs. Alternatively, the system could be configured to display any type of image or icon.”); or
accepting the user-selected object from the Internet (Gazit, para. 88, “As shown in the figure, the visual element appears as a pair of neighboring LEDs. Alternatively, the system could be configured to display any type of image or icon.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user selected pattern includes accepting the user-selected pattern from a plurality of predetermined patterns, where the plurality of predetermined patterns includes two or more of a left-right pattern, a top-down pattern, a diagonal pattern, a circle, an oval, and a figure-8 (Gazit, para. 63, “Visual element tracking path control: The shape of the track along which the visual element moves, which may be vertical, horizontal, diagonal, infinity sign, parabola, etc.” It is noted that infinity sign is equivalent to “figure-8”.).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user-selected background includes accepting the user-selected background from a plurality of predetermined backgrounds (Gazit, para. 65, “Visual element background color control: the screen background color, behind the visual element.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user-selected background includes accepting the user-selected background from the camera or the Internet (Gazit, para. 65, “Visual element background color control: the screen background color, behind the visual element.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user-selected text message includes accepting the user-selected text message from a plurality of text messages (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because a user-selected text message is claimed in the alternative in independent claims 1 and 10.).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user-selected text message includes accepting the user-selected text message as input to the input device (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because a user-selected text message is claimed in the alternative in independent claims 1 and 10.).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user selected audio track includes accepting the user-selected audio track from a plurality of predetermined audio tracks (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because a user-selected audio track is claimed in the alternative in independent claims 1 and 10. Regardless, Gazit, para. 66, “Auditory element sound control: tone, sound effect, or music, as well as volume.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Gazit teaches the method of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, where the configuring the user selected audio track includes accepting the user-selected audio track from the memory of the electronic device or accepting the user-selected audio track from the Internet (It is noted that this limitation does not need to be taught by the prior art because a user-selected audio track is claimed in the alternative in independent claims 1 and 10. Regardless, Gazit, para. 66, “Auditory element sound control: tone, sound effect, or music, as well as volume.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 9-10, Applicant asserts that para. 28, 30, 332-4, 39-43, 46, 71-80, 85-88, 93-96, 100-102, 111, and 118-121 of the specification and Fig. 6A-11B provides support for the claim limitations at issue. In pg. 10-13, Applicant also asserts that user selection of parameters, followed by system-performed configuration and execution based on those parameters, is a well-understood architectural paradigm in computer-implemented systems and is described as such in the specification.
Examiner is not persuaded. Many of those paragraphs are explicitly identified in the rejection as insufficient. Examiner notes that processor-centric language (source code listings, etc.) is not a requirement under 35 USC 112(a). MPEP 2161.01(I) provides the guidance regarding determining whether there is adequate written description for a computer-implemented functional claim limitation, and is titled as such. As MPEP 2161.01(I) states, claims 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). (Underlined for emphasis). Applicant’s citation from para. 72 is a prime example of merely reciting that a function is performed in results-based language – “system 100 executes the steps required to configure and provide a Visual BLS Session.” Here, the specification recites that a computer-implemented function is performed, but is silent regarding what the steps are to perform the function of configuring a Visual BLS Session. It is also noted that the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description how the BLS session is configured with respect to a user-selected factor related to a problem or a goal. While not currently claimed, Applicant is advised that amending the claims towards addressing the factor will only cause additional rejections under at least 35 USC 112(a) as the disclosure does not include sufficient written description for addressing the factor.
In pg. 11, Applicant also asserts that no particular claim limitation for which written description is lacking is identified.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) which have always explicitly identified which claim limitation(s) lack sufficient written description.
In pg. 12-13, Applicant also asserts that as set forth in MPEP 2161, the written description requirement is satisfied when the specification, viewed as a whole, reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, and does not require disclosure of source code or detailed algorithms where § 112(f) is not invoked, and asserts that this is paraphrased from a citation from MPEP 2161.01(II).
Examiner is not persuaded. The citation is from MPEP 2161.01(II) which provides guidance regarding best mode, not sufficient written description. Applicant is directed back to the citation from MPEP 2161.01(II) which explicitly states “description of such a best mode”, not written description requirement. Applicant is reminded that written description and best mode are separate and distinct requirements under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2161(II) which explicitly identifies this.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant asserts that the claims recited a computer-implemented process, and thus do not describe a basic bilateral stimulation session between people. Applicant concludes this argument with asserting that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant’s assertion acts to further evidence the mere use of a computer to automate what is traditionally an interpersonal interaction between an EMDR practitioner and a client. Mere use of a computer to implement a judicial exception has been repeatedly identified by the courts as neither integrating a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two nor adding significantly more under Step 2B. It is noted that Prong One of Step 2A is concerned with only determining whether a judicial exception is recited, not whether or not the claims are directed to a judicial exception. That determination occurs under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant also asserts the claims recite a particular operational framework in which session parameters are stored in memory and used by the processor to control execution during runtime, including synchronization of multiple output modalities and conditional gating of execution based on detected tactile input events. Applicant follows with asserting that these limitations constrain how the system operates and meaningfully limit the scope of the claims to a specific technical implementation which improves the operation of the computing system during execution.
Examiner is not persuaded. This is not a specific technical implementation. No improvement to a computer or other technology is improved. As identified in the rejection, the computerized elements merely act to tie the judicial exception to implementation in a computerized environment. Applicant’s earlier assertions under Prong One contradict such assertions of specificity and improvement as they explicitly admit the mere use of a computer (e.g., “computer-implemented”, “processor-performed”, etc.). It is further noted that, in contrast to the claims found patent eligible in McRO, the claims, and disclosure as a whole, are silent regarding any specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans.
Under Step 2B, Applicant asserts that when viewed as a whole, the claims recite concrete processor-performed operations that impose meaningful limitations on execution behavior and therefore amount to significantly more.
Examiner is not persuaded. This is merely a conclusory statement made without substantive support, and is not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the rejection which finds that a processor is merely claimed in its ordinary capacity to implement the judicial exception, and thus does not add significantly more. As identified earlier, the claims merely recite automating (i.e., implementing with a computer) what is traditionally an interpersonal interaction between an EMDR practitioner and a client. All of the asserted aspects directly relate their human-performed counterparts within that traditional practice, including a human operating a computer. For instance, the “AR background” is merely the real-world background that would traditionally be viewed by the client with the client’s own eyes while the practitioner operates the object in the foreground as opposed to being viewed on a screen that is provided to that screen by a camera in real-time. In other words, it is merely using computerized elements to perform their basic functions that are not any improvement to any computer technology.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Gazit does not teach asserted features of the amended claims.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant’s assertions are not only significantly more narrow than the reasonable interpretation of the claims, but are also conclusory statements made without substantive support and are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the claims which illustrate that Gazit teaches the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715