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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently under consideration and rejected below. Claims 21-72 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 1-20 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/28/2026. In the current amendment filed 07/27/2026 Applicant amended the previously rejected claims 1-9, 11-19, amended the previously withdrawn claims 21-37, and cancelled the previously withdrawn claims 38-72.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to any of the enumerated groupings. The amended claims recite specific technical features (see remarks pgs. 22-23 that are not descriptive of managing personal behavior or interactions.
In response to Applicant’s argument the claims are directed to delivering interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users. Following rules or instructions to provide that interactive session for the user amounts to managing personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions). Therefore, the amended claims fall under organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements reflect an improvement in the computer by reducing computational resources.
In response to Applicant’s argument, there does not appear to be a nexus between the amended claims and the claimed improvement. Additionally, the amended claims recite additional elements that amount to merely instructions to apply an exception in a computer environment. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific manner of displaying another image, a virtual character response, and feedback based on the user’s selection that it is akin to eligible claim 1 of Example 37.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims are unlike Example 37 since the amended claims recite additional elements that amount to merely instructions to apply an exception in a computer environment. The claims are directed to improving a user's social improvement, which is not a technical problem. See spec. [0003]. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that the claims impose meaningful limits on the alleged judicial exception and integrate the exception into a practical application, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as discussed above the additional elements amount to merely applying the judicial exception in a computer environment and therefore do not amount to a practical application. See the updated rejection for further clarification.
Rejection Under 102/103:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the recited prior art does not disclose to suggest the specific implementation details recited in the amended claim. See remarks pgs. 28-30. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the arguments are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. See below for “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11-20 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claim 11) recites:
A method of presenting interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users, comprising:
obtaining, by a server, a layer configuration comprising a plurality of layers associated with addressing an impairment associated with a condition of a user, the layer configuration comprising:
a cognitive training layer comprising one or more first files corresponding to one or more first images and one or more first prompts associated with selection of one or more social cues in the one or more first images;
a virtual functional training layer comprising a plurality of second files corresponding to a plurality of second images and one or more second prompts associated with selection of one or more responses to virtual social scenarios in the one or more second images; and
a functional training layer comprising one or more third prompts to direct the user to perform one or more activities in a surrounding of the user;
generating, by the server, a first set of code for a first session in accordance with the cognitive training layer of the identified layer configuration;
transmitting, by the server, the first set of code to a user device for execution through a software application on the user device, wherein executing the first set of code comprises:
displaying, on the user device, the one or more first images and the one or more first prompts with which the user is to recognize the one or more social cues associated with a social skill;
generating, by the server, a second set of code for a second session in accordance with the virtual functional training layer of the identified layer configuration;
transmitting, by the server, the second set of code to the user device for execution through the software application on the user device, wherein executing the second set of code comprises:
(i) displaying, on the user device, a second image of the plurality of second images of a virtual social scenario with (a) the one or more second prompts corresponding to the virtual social scenario for the user to interact with a virtual character displaying the one or more social cues and (b) a set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of possible interactions between the user and the virtual character,
(ii) receiving, via the user device, a selection by the user of one of the plurality of possible interactions via an interactive element of the set of interactive elements, and
(iii) displaying, on the user device, another second image of the plurality of second images, a response by the virtual character to the selection by the user, and feedback for the user based on the selection by the user;
generating, by the server, a third set of code for a third session in accordance with the functional training layer of the identified layer configuration; and
transmitting, by the server, the third set of code to the user device for execution through the software application on the user device, wherein executing the third set of code comprises:
(i) displaying, on the user device, the one or more third prompts to direct the user to perform the one or more activities, and
(ii) receiving, via the user device, a second response by the user associated with performance of the one or more activities.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the server, cognitive training layer, virtual functional training layer, functional training layer, user device, software application on user device, virtual, processors coupled with memory (clm. 11), the limitations in the context of this claim encompass following rules to train users to recognize social cues and improve their skills for social settings and assisting the user with their functional impairment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behavior or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12-20 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
For example, claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claim 11) recites:
A method of presenting interactive sessions to address functional impairment in users, comprising:
obtaining, by a server, a layer configuration comprising a plurality of layers (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),associated with addressing an impairment associated with a condition of a user, the layer configuration comprising: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
a cognitive training layer (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),comprising one or more first files corresponding to one or more first images and one or more first prompts associated with selection of one or more social cues in the one or more first images;
a virtual functional training layer (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), comprising a plurality of second files corresponding to a plurality of second images and one or more second prompts associated with selection of one or more responses to virtual social scenarios in the one or more second images; and
a functional training layer (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), comprising one or more third prompts to direct the user to perform one or more activities in a surrounding of the user;
generating, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a first set of code for a first session in accordance with the cognitive training layer of the identified layer configuration;
transmitting, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),the first set of code to a user device for execution through a software application on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein executing the first set of code comprises:
displaying, on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the one or more first images and the one or more first prompts with which the user is to recognize the one or more social cues associated with a social skill;
generating, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a second set of code for a second session in accordance with the virtual functional training layer of the identified layer configuration;
transmitting, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the second set of code to the user device for execution through the software application on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein executing the second set of code comprises:
(i) displaying, on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a second image of the plurality of second images of a virtual (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) social scenario with (a) the one or more second prompts corresponding to the virtual (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), social scenario for the user to interact with a virtual (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), character displaying the one or more social cues and (b) a set of interactive elements identifying a corresponding plurality of possible interactions between the user and the virtual (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), character,
(ii) receiving, via the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a selection by the user of one of the plurality of possible interactions via an interactive element of the set of interactive elements, and
(iii) displaying, on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),another second image of the plurality of second images, a response by the virtual (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),character to the selection by the user, and feedback for the user based on the selection by the user;
generating, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a third set of code for a third session in accordance with the functional training layer of the identified layer configuration; and
transmitting, by the server, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the third set of code to the user device for execution through the software application on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), wherein executing the third set of code comprises:
(i) displaying, on the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the one or more third prompts to direct the user to perform the one or more activities, and
(ii) receiving, via the user device, (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a second response by the user associated with performance of the one or more activities.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations, which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitations of the server, cognitive training layer, virtual functional training layer, functional training layer, user device, software application on user device, virtual, processors coupled with memory (clm. 11), thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0008], [0060], [0062], [0070]-[0074], [0083], [0085], [0240]-[0241], [0254], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional limitations that further the abstract idea; claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 17-20 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the server, cognitive training layer, virtual functional training layer, functional training layer, user device, software application on user device, virtual, processors coupled with memory (clm. 11), e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. [0008], [0060], [0062], [0070]-[0074], [0083], [0085], [0240]-[0241], [0254]); using a processor coupled with memory, a server, virtual settings, and layers, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are free of prior art over Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355), Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929), and Donaher et al. (US 2004/0197750). The prior art references, or reasonable combination thereof, could not be found to disclose, or suggest all the limitations found in the independent claims. The closest prior art is Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155355), which teaches a game delivery system that delivers a plurality of training games to overcome cognitive deficits associated with a neurological disorder. Hallowell et al. (US 2010/0092929) teaches assessing cognitive and linguistic abilities of a patient in response to predetermined verbal and visual stimuli by incorporating eye-tracking technology. Donaher et al. (US 2004/0197750) teaches a computer-assisted role-playing simulation for life skills for living subjects burdened with a disability. The references taken solely, or in combination, fail to provide the required limitations, and modification of any complementary combination of the references of record would be impermissible hindsight and not provide any advantages over their present application. The dependent claims are also free of prior art due to their corresponding dependency of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights