DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the application filed on August 29, 2024.
Claims 1-25 are pending and rejected.
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant should be aware that there is claim language that does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art and/or provide an additional element that can be a consideration for eligibility1. See MPEP 2103(c).
Intended Use
Intended use language is generally not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.”
The following limitations include intended use limitations:
Claim 1: “allowing the user to access an AI widget to perform research in substantially real time to assist in submission of the response(s) to each of the one or more questions”
Claim 9: “allowing the user to access an AI widget to perform research in substantially real time to assist in submission of a response to each of the one or more questions”
Claim 10: “wherein the method is for use by United States military Veterans”
Claim 20: “allowing the user to provide input to an AI widget to assist the user in submission of at least one response to at least one of the one or more questions”
Other
Many claims use the term “allowing.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “allowing” does not require that the action actually occurs.
Many claims use “and/or.” This is interpreted as “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the operations further comprise creating a blog post based on the uploaded consolidated copy and the uploaded photograph.” However, claim 5 depends from claim 4, which does not require that both the consolidated copy and the photograph are uploaded. Per the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4, if only the consolidated copy, for example, is uploaded, then in claim 5, the blog post cannot be created based on both the uploaded consolidated copy and the uploaded photograph. For purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as “creating the blog post based on the uploaded consolidated copy and/or the uploaded photograph.”
Claim 14 is indefinite for reasons similar to claim 5. If, in claim 13, the user uploads a photograph and not the consolidated copy, then in claim 14, a blog cannot be created based on the uploaded consolidated coy. For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted such that the consolidated copy is uploaded in claim 13.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-8, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 9-25, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. A system for writing assistance, the system comprising:
a processor;
a memory unit and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, the operations comprising:
prompting a user with one or more questions;
allowing the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions; and
allowing the user to access an AI widget to perform research in substantially real time to assist in submission of the response(s) to each of the one or more questions.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise consolidating and providing a consolidated copy of each of the one or more questions and each response to the one or more questions.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise allowing the user to email the consolidated copy to a customizable email address.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise:
allowing a user to upload the consolidated copy and/or upload a photograph; and
providing confirmation of said upload to the user.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise creating a blog post based on the uploaded consolidated copy and the uploaded photograph.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise creating a book based on the blog post and/or the consolidated copy.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the system allows the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions via text input and/or voice input.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the AI widget is configured to allow the user to prompt the widget wherein the widget then responds to the user.
9. A method of providing writing assistance, the method comprising:
prompting a user with one or more questions;
allowing a user to respond to each of the one or more questions; and
allowing the user to access an AI widget to perform research in substantially real time to assist in submission of a response to each of the one or more questions.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the method is for use by United States military Veterans.
11. The method of claim 9, further comprising consolidating and providing a consolidated copy of each of the one or more questions and each response to the one or more questions to the user.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising allowing the user to email the consolidated copy to a specifiable email address.
13. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
allowing a user to upload the consolidated copy and/or upload a photograph; and
providing confirmation of said upload to the user.
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising creating a blog post, with AI assistance, based on the uploaded consolidated copy.
15. The method claim 9, wherein the step of allowing the user to respond to each of the one or more questions can be accomplished by the user via text input and/or voice input.
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising allowing the user to create a private, secure, and anonymous account of which the user can login and logout.
17. The method of claim 9, wherein the AI widget is configured to allow the user to prompt the widget wherein the widget then responds to the user.
18. The method of claim 9, wherein the AI widget is configured to provide emotional support and/or advice to the user.
19. The method of claim 9, wherein the method is computer-implemented.
20. A computer-implemented method for assisting Veterans, the method comprising:
displaying one or more questions via a display such that the one or more questions are viewable by a user;
allowing the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions;
allowing the user to provide input to an AI widget to assist the user in submission of at least one response to at least one of the one or more questions; and
providing a therapeutic benefit to the user based on the one or more questions and response(s) thereto and/or based on the user’s input to the AI widget.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the therapeutic benefit comprises recognizing an indication that the user is experiencing and/or has experienced a challenge, based on the response to at least one of the one or more questions and/or on the input provided to the AI widget, and providing output via the AI widget regarding the challenge.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the challenge comprises suicidal thought(s), PTSD symptom(s), substance usage issue(s), and/or anger, and/or any combination thereof.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the output comprises guidance, advice, and/or emotional support.
24. The method of claim 23, wherein the guidance, advice, and/or emotional support is related to suicide prevention.
25. The method of claim 20, wherein the therapeutic benefit comprises generating and publishing a story based on the one or more questions and the response(s) thereof.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to providing assistance. This type of method of organizing human activity is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims also recite mental processes. For example, the independent claims recite limitations of displaying questions (observation), allowing a user to respond to the questions (judgment or opinion), allowing a user to get assistance from an AI widget (evaluation or judgment), and providing a therapeutic benefit to a user (judgment or opinion). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Darcy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0215544 A1.
Claim 1:
Darcy discloses:
a processor; a memory unit and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, the operations comprising: (see at least Darcy, Figure 1; Figure 9).
prompting a user with one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
allowing the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
allowing the user to access an AI widget to perform research in substantially real time to assist in submission of the response(s) to each of the one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
Although Darcy discloses each limitation, the claimed AI widget is disclosed in Darcy as a chatbot. The Specification refers to the AI widget as an AI chat widget and states that it could be a chatbot. See paragraphs 0093 and 0169. The claimed AI widget and Darcy’s chatbot appear to be the same. However, if there are differences, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chatbot of Darcy with an AI widget in order to achieve the same results of accessing useful information by “chatting” with AI.
Claim 2:
Darcy further discloses:
consolidating and providing a consolidated copy of each of the one or more questions and each response to the one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 6 and 7 (The questions and answers are provided to a user via a device interface.)).
Claim 7:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the system allows the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions via text input and/or voice input (see at least Darcy, paragraph 0039 (“In some cases, the user input can be received as free text (e.g., text typed in by the user, which can be in the user’s own words)….”)).
Claim 8:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the AI widget is configured to allow the user to prompt the widget wherein the widget then responds to the user (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7 and associated text).
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale that was used for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 18:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the AI widget is configured to provide emotional support and/or advice to the user (see at least Darcy, Figures 6 and associated text).
Claim 19:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the method is computer-implemented (see at least Darcy, Figure 1; Figure 9).
Claim 20:
Darcy discloses:
displaying one or more questions via a display such that the one or more questions are viewable by a user (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
allowing the user to submit a response to each of the one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
allowing the user to provide input to an AI widget to assist the user in submission of at least one response to at least one of the one or more questions (see at least Darcy, Figures 5-7; paragraph 0054 (“Assessments can be collected via user input. User input data can be collected either at the user's own instigation (e.g., the user opens the chatbot and specifically states that they are having difficulty sleeping) or in response to a prompt from the therapy-providing system (e.g., during a chatbot session, the chatbot asks the user to rank how often they fall asleep when they want to and the user responds). In some cases, user input data associated with assessments can include selecting from a list of available responses. For example, a therapy-providing system may collect assessment data by asking the user to answer a series of questions, each to which the user can respond by selecting from a list of available responses (e.g., “All of the time (3), Most of the time (2), Some of the time (1), None of the time (0)”).”)).
providing a therapeutic benefit to the user based on the one or more questions and response(s) thereto and/or based on the user’s input to the AI widget (see at least Darcy, Figure 6 and associated text).
Although Darcy discloses each limitation, the claimed AI widget is disclosed in Darcy as a chatbot. The Specification refers to the AI widget as an AI chat widget and states that it could be a chatbot. See paragraphs 0093 and 0169. The claimed AI widget and Darcy’s chatbot appear to be the same. However, if there are differences, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chatbot of Darcy with an AI widget in order to achieve the same results of accessing useful information by “chatting” with AI.
Claim 21:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the therapeutic benefit comprises recognizing an indication that the user is experiencing and/or has experienced a challenge, based on the response to at least one of the one or more questions and/or on the input provided to the AI widget, and providing output via the AI widget regarding the challenge (see at least Darcy, Figures 6 and associated text).
Claim 22:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the challenge comprises suicidal thought(s), PTSD symptom(s), substance usage issue(s), and/or anger, and/or any combination thereof (see at least Darcy, paragraph 0050 (“suicidal thoughts”); paragraph 0053 (“uncontrollable anger, posttraumatic stress disorder”)).
Claim 23:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the output comprises guidance, advice, and/or emotional support (see at least Darcy, Figures 6 and associated text).
Claim 24:
Darcy further discloses:
wherein the guidance, advice, and/or emotional support is related to suicide prevention (see at least Darcy, paragraph 0050 (“suicidal thoughts”)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darcy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0215544 A1 and Official Notice.
Claim 3:
Darcy does not explicitly teach, but Official Notice is taken that the following limitation is old and well known:
allowing the user to email the consolidated copy to a customizable email address.
The Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is old and well known to email documents. For example, it is common to provide an email address to a website in order to receive an email with information being viewed on the website. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature with Darcy’s therapy platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing a way for a user to access the conversation after leaving the chat.
Claim 16:
Darcy does not explicitly teach, but Official Notice is taken that the following limitation is old and well known:
allowing the user to create a private, secure, and anonymous account of which the user can login and logout.
The Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is old and well known to create an account For example, online platforms/websites usually have secure accounts where a user can log in and access account information. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature with Darcy’s therapy platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of allowing a user to have more than one session with the platform without having to start over.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darcy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0215544 A1 and Sieger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0032430 A1.
Claim 4:
Darcy does not explicitly teach, but Sieger, however, does teach:
allowing a user to upload the consolidated copy and/or upload a photograph; and providing confirmation of said upload to the user (see at least Sieger, Figure 33; paragraph 0062 (“FIG. 33 of Flow 2 displays a confirmation 266 that the photo has been successfully uploaded. The application program may receive a confirmation message from the server in order to verify the successful upload. The screen displays an option 268 to the user to permit another photo to be uploaded if desired or to indicate that the uploading of photos is complete by selecting the "done" button 270.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sieger’s method of uploading a photo with Darcy’s therapy platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of allowing a user to provide useful information that is in the form of a photograph.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darcy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0215544 A1 and Mathis, https://www.timmathiswrites.com/post/the-hero-s-journey-narrative-therapy-to-write-yourself-out-of-a-dark-black-hole (Dec. 3, 2022).
Claim 10:
Darcy does not explicitly teach, but Mathis, however, does teach:
wherein the method is for use by United States military Veterans (see at least Mathis, page 2 (Narrative therapy has “been used to support soldiers returning from war.”)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mathis’ method of using narrative therapy for Veterans with Darcy’s therapy platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing therapy to a group of individuals who are likely to need therapy.
Claim 25:
Darcy does not explicitly teach, but Mathis, however, does teach:
wherein the therapeutic benefit comprises generating and publishing a story based on the one or more questions and the response(s) thereof (see at least Mathis, this reference discusses narrative therapy).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mathis’ narrative therapy with Darcy’s therapy platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature for the purpose of providing writing as a form of self-therapy. See Mathis, page 2.
Note: Claims 5, 6, and 14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of the combination of limitations. Although individual features such as creating a blog are known in the art, the claims as a whole (including the claims from which they depend) are not obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Plot Generator, https://web.archive.org/web/20210306104509/https://www.plot-generator.org.uk/story/ (March 6, 2021). This reference shows questions that a user answers in order to generate a story.
Email Communications
Per MPEP 502.03, Applicant may authorize email communications by filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
1 See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) (“Examiners should keep in mind that in order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.”)