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 .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 08/04/2026 the following occurred: Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15-17 were amended; and Claims 2-3 and 11-12 were canceled. Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-17 are presented for examination.
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, 4-10, and 13-17 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-17 are drawn to a method and an apparatus, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites a step (A) of accessing a plurality of content provided for purpose of prescribing customized digital content and inducing formation of behavioral habits are constructed while being classified into emotional category content, cognitive category content, and behavioral category content; and a step (B) of determining content to be recommended to the user according to a mental health profile of the user, including a mental illness or a mental health symptom of the user, and, wherein the step (B) includes: identifying from the mental health profile of the user, an identified condition of the user comprising a mental illness or a mental health symptom; selecting based on the identified condition, an illness thumbnail feeding rule corresponding to the mental illness or a symptom thumbnail feeding rule corresponding to the mental health symptom; selecting emotional content from the emotional category content, cognitive content from the cognitive category content, and behavioral content from the behavioral category content, according to the mental health profile of the user; determining a chronological recommendation order of the selected emotional content, the selected cognitive content, and the selected behavioral content based on the identified condition and according to the selected illness thumbnail feeding rule or the selected symptom thumbnail feeding rule, wherein the selected illness thumbnail feeding rule or the selected symptom thumbnail feeding rule defines a recommendation order of a plurality of category levels including at least one category level corresponding to each of the emotional category content, the cognitive category content, and the behavioral category content, over successive daily, weekly, or monthly intervals; causing an ordered plurality of selectable thumbnail items corresponding to the selected emotional content, the selected cognitive content, and the selected behavioral content in the chronological recommendation order; in response to receiving a refresh input, causing to update the display of the selectable thumbnail items to a priority order in which a selectable thumbnail item corresponding to cognitive content having a symptom code of a mental illness indicated by the mental health profile of the user is displayed before selectable thumbnail items corresponding to other cognitive content, and a selectable thumbnail item corresponding to behavioral content matching a stress management type indicated by the mental health profile of the user is displayed before selectable thumbnail items corresponding to other behavioral content; and in response to receiving a selection of one selectable thumbnail item of the displayed selectable thumbnail items, causing to play video content corresponding to the selected one selectable thumbnail item.
Independent claim 10 recites a plurality of content provided for purpose of prescribing customized digital content and inducing formation of behavioral habits are classified into emotional category content, cognitive category content, and behavioral category content; and determine content to be recommended to the user according to a mental health profile of the user, including a mental illness or a mental health symptom of the user, and, identify, from the mental health profile of the user, an identified condition of the user comprising a mental illness or a mental health symptom; select, based on the identified condition, an illness thumbnail feeding rule corresponding to the mental illness or a symptom thumbnail feeding rule corresponding to the mental health symptom; select emotional content from the emotional category content, cognitive content from the cognitive category content, and behavioral content from the behavioral category content, according to the mental health profile of the user; determine a chronological recommendation order of the selected emotional content, the selected cognitive content, and the selected behavioral content based on the identified condition and according to the selected illness thumbnail feeding rule or the selected symptom thumbnail feeding rule, wherein the selected illness thumbnail feeding rule or the selected symptom thumbnail feeding rule defines a recommendation order of a plurality of category levels including at least one category level corresponding to each of the emotional category content, the cognitive category content, and the behavioral category content, over successive daily, weekly, or monthly intervals; cause to display an ordered plurality of selectable thumbnail items corresponding to the selected emotional content, the selected cognitive content, and the selected behavioral content in the chronological recommendation order; in response to a refresh input received from the user terminal, cause to update the display of the selectable thumbnail items to a priority order in which a selectable thumbnail item corresponding to cognitive content having a symptom code of a mental illness indicated by the mental health profile of the user is displayed before selectable thumbnail items corresponding to other cognitive content, and a selectable thumbnail item corresponding to behavioral content matching a stress management type indicated by the mental health profile of the user is displayed before selectable thumbnail items corresponding to other behavioral content; and in response to a selection of one selectable thumbnail item of the displayed selectable thumbnail items received, cause to play video content corresponding to the selected one selectable thumbnail item.
The respective dependent claims 4-9 and 13-17, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
Said above recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the disclosure to an invention “that prescribes user-customized digital content based on the emotion-cognition-behavior theory and induces the formation of behavioral habits for mental health management” (see: specification paragraph 1). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address a problem where “there are various types of symptoms and mental illnesses related to mental health, and different types of users need customized services for mental health management” and current “apps are not based on medical knowledge related to mental health and simply provide content capable of providing mental comfort or causing emotional changes” (see: specification paragraph 3). The recited limitations address such problems by “prescribe[ing] customized digital content for users based on the emotion-cognition-behavior theory and induce the formation of behavioral habits for mental health management…enable[ing] users to manage their own mental health without time and space constraints through self-healthcare, and to practice and make a habit of preventing and continuously managing mental illness…provid[ing] customized mental health management services to various users by providing steady treatment and management to patients with mental illness to provide symptom relief and mental stability, providing screening for mental illness, in-depth checkup, comfort and sympathy, and solutions for recovery to high-risk users, and helping general users form lifestyle habits, strengthen motivation, and recognize the need for mental health management” (see: specification paragraph 4-6). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including an “at least one processor executing instruction in a memory, a content database in which…by the at least one processor…causing a user terminal of the user to display the content via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of the user terminal…by the at least one processor…by the at least one processor…by the at least one processor…by the at least one processor…by the at least one processor, the user terminal to display, via the GUI on the display of the user terminal…from the user terminal…by the at least one processor, the GUI…by the at least one processor, the user terminal…” (claim 1), “providing, by the at least one processor, a mission for mental health management to the user, and providing a raffle ticket for the user…using the user terminal; providing one or more mental health hero characters of a plurality of predetermined mental health hero characters to the user terminal…providing a reward to the user…” (claim 8), “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program…” (claim 9), “A self-care mental health management apparatus…a content database constructed such that…at least one processor, executing instruction in a memory configured to…to cause a user terminal of the user to display the content via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display of the user terminal, wherein the at least one processor, executing instruction in the memory is further configured to:…the user terminal…, via the GUI on the display of the user terminal…the GUI…from the user terminal…the user terminal…” (claim 10), and “provide a mission for mental health management to the user, and provide a raffle ticket for the user…using the user terminal, provide one or more mental health hero characters of a plurality of predetermined mental health hero characters to the user terminal…provide a reward to the user…” (claim 17), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “content database” is configured though no more than a statement than that a pluriaty of content is “provided” by said database; the “at least one processor” is configured though no more than a statement than that “executing” instructions performs functions; the “memory” is configured through no more than a statement than that instructions are “in” said memory; the “user terminal” is configured through no more than a statement than that it is caused to “display” content, that data is received “from” and sent “to” said user terminal, and that functions are performed “using” said user terminal; the “graphical user interface (GUI)” on said display is configured through no more than a statement than that content is displayed “via” said GUI; the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is configured though no more than a statement than that method steps are to be “execut[ed]” according to “a computer program” reordered thereon) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer elements. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
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 integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic elements cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 4-9 and 13-17, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because, “[i]n Example 37 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 37 to 42, a claim that stops at determining and ranking information is patent-ineligible, whereas a claim that carries the same determined information forward into a specific operation on a graphical user interface is patent-eligible…The distinction is instructive here. Ineligible claim 3 determines the amount of use of each icon and ranks the icons on that basis, and there it stops; the determined information remains purely informational. Eligible claim 1 recites the identical determination, but carries the determined information into a concrete interface operation by automatically moving the most-used icons to a defined position on the graphical user interface. A determination that remains an output is materially different, for Prong Two purposes, from a determination that controls a further, specifically recited interface operation. The analogy Applicant draws is narrow: both Example 37 claim 1 and the amended claims use the determined information to control an expressly claimed operation on a graphical user interface rather than ending with the determination itself. This is the feature the guidance treats as integrating a judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Applying that distinction to amended claim I at Prong Two: the claim does not end with determining which content should be recommended or ranked. The processor uses the identified mental illness or mental-health symptom to select the corresponding illness or symptom thumbnail feeding rule. The selected rule defines a chronological order of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral category levels over successive daily, weekly, or monthly intervals, and the resulting chronological recommendation order controls the order in which an expressly identified set of graphical-user-interface objects-an ordered plurality of selectable thumbnail items corresponding to the selected content-is displayed on the user terminal. The claim then recites a further interface operation on those same objects. In response to a refresh input, the graphical user interface updates the displayed order of the selectable thumbnail items to a priority order that differs by category: cognitive content bearing a symptom code of the indicated mental illness is displayed ahead of other cognitive content, and behavioral content matching the indicated stress-management type is displayed ahead of other behavioral content. Selection of a displayed thumbnail item then causes the corresponding video content to be played. The determined information therefore does not remain the endpoint of the claim but is applied to control expressly recited operations on identified graphical-user-interface objects, the feature relevant to the practical-application distinction illustrated by Example 37. This is not the generic display of curated content: the identified condition, through the selected rule, dictates which selectable thumbnail objects appear and in what order, and a refresh input re-orders those same displayed objects by category-specific criteria, an operation on the interface itself rather than a mere presentation of information. Amended claim I therefore integrates any recited judicial exception into a practical application and is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two; independent claim IO recites corresponding limitations and is eligible for the same reasons.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
There is not “a specific operation on a graphical user interface” in the present claims comparable to that of argued Example 37. As argued, the eligible claim in Example 37 includes “a concrete interface operation by automatically moving the most-used icons to a defined position on the graphical user interface”. In the current claims, as argued, the “selected rule defines a chronological order…and the resulting chronological recommendation order controls the order in which an expressly identified set of graphical-user-interface objects - an ordered plurality of selectable thumbnail items corresponding to the selected content - is displayed on the user terminal.” The claims are actually to selectable “items”, not the argued objects, and broadly indicate that the argued “rule” guides the order in which information “items” are displayed. The further argued “refresh” command, is simply a reprioritized ordering of information performed “in response to receiving” said command. The result is an abstract description of what information is displayed in what order and does not concern the graphical elements themselves (Example 37’s icons) or a GUI function pertaining to their display (Example 37’s automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system). That the “[s]election of a displayed thumbnail item then causes the corresponding video content to be played” is an abstract concept similar to delivering user-selected media content to portable devices (Affinity Labs v. Amazon.com) and/or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location (Ameranth). It is argued that rules that dictate “which selectable thumbnail objects appear and in what order, and a refresh input re-orders those same displayed objects by category-specific criteria” are an operation on the interface itself, but the argument itself states that the invention is to a “rule” dictating “what order” information is displayed and then fails to identify what display specific operation the interface itself performs beyond the displaying of said information.
The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (2) 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because, “[t]o the extent the Office proceeds to Step 2B, Applicant further submits that the claim recites an inventive concept in its ordered combination. Under Bascom, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are, considered individually, generic and conventional.2 The limitations here are properly evaluated as an ordered combination, and on the present record the Office Action's general observations that transmitting data over a network and storing information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional (Office Action, ,i 12) do not establish that the specifically recited combination-an illness- or symptom-specific rule fixing a chronological, category-level display order of selectable thumbnail items, together with the refresh-responsive re-prioritization of those displayed objects-was well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). The claim thus also provides an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility at Step 2B…Paragraph [0059] describes selecting "the illness thumbnail feeding rule" where the user is determined to have a mental health-related illness and "the symptom thumbnail feeding rule" where the user is determined to have a mental health-related symptom. Paragraph [0065] describes "determin[ing] the chronological recommendation order of one or more emotional content, one or more cognitive content, and one or more behavioral content ... according to the thumbnail feeding rule selected." Paragraph [0069] describes that the feeding rule has "a horizontal axis representing time (daily, weekly, monthly ... )" along which recommended content is provided "in a category-level unit," and paragraph [007 4] confirms that "the recommendation order of a plurality of category levels ... may be determined differently according to the ... illness thumbnail feeding rule, and the symptom thumbnail feeding rule." Paragraph [0075] describes the refresh-responsive prioritization in detail: "a thumbnail, symptom code, or the like is entered for each content, so that the content may be provided to a user through the app according to the priority order whenever the user presses a refresh button," where "in the case of the cognitive content category, content in which the symptom code of an illness related to the user is entered may be provided first," and "in the case of the behavioral content category, content that matches the user's stress management type may be provided first." …Paragraph [0091] describes that, " [ w ]hen a thumbnail item 22 is clicked ... , video content corresponding to the ... content category may be played back." The figures further corroborate the rule-dependent sequencing and the claimed interface operations described in the specification. FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate two different feeding rules and show that the resulting chronological order of category levels differs depending on which rule governs-a category level directed to illness education that appears near the end of the sequence under one feeding rule appears at the front under another. FIGS. 11 and 12 show the selected content presented as selectable thumbnail items and the playback of a selected item. FIG. 16 shows refresh controls positioned adjacent to the displayed Emotion and Cognition sections; the refresh-responsive priority criteria for the behavioral content are described in paragraph [0075].”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In BASCOM, the inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. The current claims were considered as a whole and no such arrangement was found to be similarly non-generic. As shown in the rejection above, when applying the Supreme Court’s two-part framework as set forth in Alice Corp., the claims are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Note that in BASCOM, it was the arrangement of the additional elements that was found non-generic, but in the present arguments it is argued not that the arrangement of the additional elements is non-generic, but that the “the specifically recited combination - an illness- or symptom-specific rule fixing a chronological, category-level display order of selectable thumbnail items, together with the refresh-responsive re-prioritization of those displayed objects” is non-generic. What was identified as the portions of the abstract idea is argued as additional elements, which they are not. The combination of the additional elements with the argued abstract elements also does not yield a technical result (practical application or inventive concept) that is different or significantly more than when considered separately. This is demonstrated in the rejection above. That the abstract limitations are now considered novel does not alter this conclusion as judicial exceptions need not be old or long‐prevalent, and that even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding the concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency abstract in Ultramercial, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was “new”.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (3) 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “Prescribing a tailored therapy sequence (Paull ,-i,i 119, 127, 145, 154-155, 162, 173) and sorting wellbeing content into categories and levels (Jain ,i,i 61-62, 68, 97, 168) yields, at most, a personalized, category-based regimen of content; it does not yield a rule that carries the identified condition into a chronological, category-level ordering of specified selectable thumbnail objects on a graphical user interface, or the refresh-responsive re-prioritization of those displayed objects. The combination must be assessed as an ordered whole, and the portions cited in the Office Action identify no such teaching. The Office Action's stated reason to combine-modifying Paull's content organization to include Jain's program-level content "with the motivation of improving different aspects of a user's health and/or assist a user to reach a goal" (Jain ,i,i 166-167, as relied upon in the Office Action)-does not supply the missing subject matter, because it would lead at most to personalized, category-based therapy content, not to the claimed illness-/symptom-specific temporal ordering and refresh-responsive displayed-thumbnail operation.”
The argument is persuasive, and the rejections are withdrawn.
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 ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
