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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed January 16, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 7 of Remarks:
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US App. Pub. No. 2022/0157466, hereinafter "Vaughan") in view of Wall et al. (US App. Pub. No. 2021/0133509, hereinafter "Wall").
In view of the foregoing amendment, it is respectfully submitted the present invention as claimed includes at least one limitation that is not disclosed or suggested by Vaughan, and Wall.
Applicant has amended their claims requiring further search and consideration. Based on the amendments and further search and consideration, the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 15 of Remarks:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.| 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Guidance, the first prong of Step 2A involves determining whether the claims fall within three "enumerated groupings of abstract ideas" found in previous guidelines: "mathematical concepts," "certain methods of organizing human activity," and "mental processes." If a claim does not "fall within" one of these categories, then a claim is likely directed to patentable subject matter. The Examiner contends that the claims represent a "mental process" and "certain methods of organizing human activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's characterization of the claims and analysis under Step 2A. As amended the claims describe a process for obtaining, by a processor using a measurement system, a first set of user data; inputting, the first set of user data into a predictive model to determine a first score; determining, by the processor using the first score, an indicator associated with a mental state status of a user; determining, by the processor, based on the indicator, a category associated with a self-regulation of the mental state status of the user, wherein the category indicates one or more of a plurality of zones for the user, wherein the plurality of zones include a first zone, a second zone, a third zone, and a fourth zone, wherein the second zone is a blue zone indicating that the user feels blue, down and slow, wherein the second zone is green zone indicating that the user is ready to learn, wherein the third zone is red zone indicating that the user feels out and control and hard to calm down, wherein the fourth zone is a yellow zone indicating that the user feels uncomfortable and overwhelmed; determining, by the processor, a first gamification application for the user based on the category associated with the one or more of the plurality of zones; and presenting, by the processor using the measurement system, the category, and the first gamification application associated with the one or more of the plurality of zones to the user. None of these steps can be performed "in the human mind" as they are all specifically tied to concrete technologies. Further, the processing performed is explicitly performed by a computing device and thus there are indeed multiple elements of the claim that "preclude the [claim] from being performed in the human mind."
Performing a judicial exception with a computer can be part of a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, where use of a computer for a mental process was still abstract.
From MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A…
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);…”
Therefore, obtaining information, determine a score, determining using the score an indicator a mental state of a user, determining a category associated with self-regulation of the mental state status of the user, determining a gamification application for the user based on the category, and presenting the category and the gamification application is abstract as a mental process as the steps collect information, analyze it, and display certain results.
Further, the claims are not directed toward "mental processes." The claims describe numerous computing processor actions within the computing device that require non-mental processes. As stated in the updated examples (Example 37), if a claim "requires action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind," such a claim does not recite a "mental process." In contrast to the Examiner's content, the claims include various steps that cannot be performed in the human mind such as for an obstacle of the one or more obstacles, if a previous planning decision for the obstacle is not a nudge decision, associating a first buffer zone with the obstacle; otherwise, associating a second buffer zone with the obstacle; and based on the associated buffer zone for the obstacle, determining a current planning decision to nudge the obstacle to ensure a buffer distance between the ADV and the obstacle; generating, by the processor, a trajectory for the ADV based on the current planning decision for the one or more obstacles; and controlling, by the processor, the ADV to navigate according to the trajectory. Thus, the claim cannot reasonably be construed as a mere "mental process."
The above Example 37 was an improvement to graphical user interface (computer) technology. Applicant’s invention is not directed to improving computer technology but “Mental Well-Being Solution” (Title).
Furthermore, these steps are not organizing "human activity." This category is primarily directed towards "economic" or "commercial" practices, as well as managing human relationships. As described in detail above, the claims are directed to a series of specific operations for obtaining, by a processor using a measurement system, a first set of user data; inputting, the first set of user data into a predictive model to determine a first score; determining, by the processor using the first score, an indicator associated with a mental state status of a user; determining, by the processor, based on the indicator, a category associated with a self-regulation of the mental state status of the user, wherein the category indicates one or more of a plurality of zones for the user, wherein the plurality of zones include a first zone, a second zone, a third zone, and a fourth zone, wherein the second zone is a blue zone indicating that the user feels blue, down and slow, wherein the second zone is green zone indicating that the user is ready to learn, wherein the third zone is red zone indicating that the user feels out and control and hard to calm down, wherein the fourth zone is a yellow zone indicating that the user feels uncomfortable and overwhelmed; determining, by the processor, a first gamification application for the user based on the category associated with the one or more of the plurality of zones; and presenting, by the processor using the measurement system, the category, and the first gamification application associated with the one or more of the plurality of zones to the user. Applicant further notes that there is no human directly involved in the claimed process, instead the communications are executed by the processor. Thus, there are no financial or economic elements in the claims.
Fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction is not the basis cited for certain methods of organizing human activity, rather the reason cited was for managing personal behavior.
From MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II…
“II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
The phrase “methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to: …
• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”
Therefore, managing personal behavior including teaching and following rules or instructions is abstract. Obtaining information from a user, determining an indicator of a mental state status of a user, determining a category associated with self-regulation of mental state status of a user are examples of following rules and instructions and teaching.
Thus, the claims do not fall into an Office-enumerated category of abstract idea and fail prong one of Step 2A. Since the claims to not pass prong one, the claims are per se not directed to an abstract idea.
Based on the above response, the Examiner respectfully maintains the claims are abstract.
Again, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not properly characterized as "mental processes" or "organizing human activity." As amended, the claims recite a processor-driven pipeline including: obtaining user data via a measurement system, inputting the data into a predictive model to generate scores, determining mental state indicators, mapping the indicators into self-regulation categories (zones), selecting a corresponding gamification application, and presenting the results through the measurement system.
Critically, the claimed invention is rooted in a technical measurement-and-inference architecture, in which the gamification application operates as an engineered input mechanism for extracting measurable mental features, and the predictive model is designed to learn latent mental patterns from those extracted features. The claimed process therefore requires computerized measurement, machine learning inference, and model-driven output generation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Machine learning is not claimed, but that has also been shown to not be enough, see July 2024 SME Example 47.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims reflect an integrated technical system where: (i) gameplay is purposefully structured to generate meaningful machine-learning-ready measurement data, and (ii) the machine learning model is specifically configured to learn and infer mental/self-regulation patterns from that data, resulting in improved technical functionality for detecting and communicating mental state status indicators and zone classifications.
Based in the above response, the rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the processor and based on the indicator… user feels out and control and hard to calm down,…” where “out and control” should probably be “out of control.” Claim 8 and 15 have a similar problem.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, product, or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to product Claim 8 and system Claim 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor using a measurement system, a first set of user data;
inputting, by the processor, the first set of user data into a predictive model to determine a first score;
determining, by the processor using the first score, an indicator associated with a mental state status of a user;
determining, by the processor based on the indicator, a category associated with a self-regulation of the mental state status of the user, wherein the category indicates one or more of a plurality of zones for the user, wherein the plurality of zones include a first zone, a second zone, a third zone, and a fourth zone, wherein the first zone indicates that the user feels blue, down and slow, wherein the second zone indicates that the user is ready to learn, wherein the third zone indicates that the user feels out and control and hard to calm down, wherein the fourth zone indicates that the use feels uncomfortable and overwhelmed;
determining, by the processor, a first gamification application for the user based on the category associated with the one or more plurality of zones; and
presenting, by the processor using the measurement system, the category, and the first gamification application associated with the one or more of the plurality of zones to the user.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior. Obtaining a first set of user data, inputting the first set of data into a predictive model to determine a first score, determining an indicator associated with a mental state status of the user, determining a gamification application for the user based on a category associated with zones, and presenting the category and first gamification application associated with zones to the user is determining the mental state of a user in order to determine an appropriate game application, is managing personal behavior by following rules and instructions and teaching. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claims are obtaining data, determining an indicator, a category, and a gamification application, and presenting the category and gamification application, the claims are obtaining, analyzing and providing a result. The claims can be performed in the mind of a person and/or with pen and paper, and therefore are abstract under Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, where use of a computer for a mental process was still abstract.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: computer, processor (Claim 1); non-transitory machine-readable medium, processor, memory (Claim 8); processor, memory (Claim 15). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “measurement system” is not defined in terms of hardware and appears to be about receiving data and displaying the mental state of a user at a high level of generality (see para. [0032] of the specification). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as obtaining (receiving) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8 and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The claims themselves are abstract or further limit abstract elements. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19 apply models at a high level of generality. Claims 2-5 also recite a generic processor at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-20 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 terms related to how a user feels including “blue,” “down,” “slow,” “ready to learn,” “out of control,” “hard to calm down,” “uncomfortable,” and “overwhelmed” which are subjective and relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, a person feeling blue is a subjective and relative feeling and depends on the person. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV and use of subjective terms. Claims 8 and 15 have a similar problem.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Rejection
The best prior art found to date is Pub. No. US 2022/0157466 to Vaughan et al. Vaughan et al. teaches predicate model, score, and mental state. However, Vaughan et al. fails to teach a plurality of zones that include a first zone, a second zone, a third zone, and a fourth zone, and where the first zone indicates that the user feels blue, down and slow, the second zone indicates that the user is ready to learn, the third zone indicates that the user feels out of control and hard to calm down, and the fourth zone indicates that the use feels uncomfortable and overwhelmed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684