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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant's claim for domestic priority benefit of Provisional Application no 63/614197, filed 12/22/23, is acknowledged.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 13, 16,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “receive information and, based on the received information, to generate and display at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or user provided content” (claim 1), “receive a unique identifier associated with the puzzle and, based on the identifier, to generate and display at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or a mirror image of the puzzle” (claim 13), “receiving information from at least one physical object, the information including at least a unique identifier associated with the type of at least one physical object; determining the type of at least one physical object based on the received unique identifier; and generating a display output based on the type of at least one physical object, wherein the display output comprises at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or a mirror image” (claim 16), are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more processors and a memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitations of “at least one physical object coupled to a wireless communication interface; and a behavioral modification system, to receive information associated with the wireless communication interface from the electronic device, and, based on the received information, to generate and display at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or user provided content” (claim 1), “a puzzle comprising a plurality of puzzle pieces sized and dimensioned based on at least one irrational ratio configured to be positioned with a puzzle pattern, wherein at least one puzzle piece comprises a wireless communication interface; and a behavioral modification system communicatively coupled to the least one puzzle piece configured to receive a unique identifier associated with the puzzle and, based on the identifier, to generate and display at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or a mirror image of the puzzle” (claim 13), “receiving information from at least one physical object, the information including at least a unique identifier associated with the type of at least one physical object; determining the type of at least one physical object based on the received unique identifier; and generating a display output based on the type of at least one physical object, wherein the display output comprises at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or a mirror image” (claim 16), are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-15, 17-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “an interactive system comprising communicatively couple to an electronic device and a display of the electronic device”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Knippen (2018/0178113) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1, ¶¶0020-0021, 0036).
In addition, with regards to the present claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-20, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knippen (2018/0178113).
Re Claim 1,
Knippen discloses an interactive system for developing positive behavioral traits comprising:
at least one physical object coupled to a wireless communication interface configured to communicatively couple to an electronic device (Fig 1, 6, ¶¶0020, 0025; game piece contains a NFC tag that communicates with a game board equipped with a reader, wherein the board communicates with a mobile device); and
a behavioral modification system configured to communicatively couple to the electronic device, to receive information associated with the wireless communication interface from the electronic device, and, based on the received information, to generate and display at least one of encouragement messages, nudge messages infused with behavioral change techniques, feedback, or user provided content on a display of the electronic device (Fig 1, 10, ¶¶0020, 0031; a game server receives the play information and determines the state of next game play).
Re Claim 2,
Knippen discloses the wireless communication interface comprises an NFC tag, RFID tag, or BLE (Fig 1, 6, ¶¶0020, 0025).
Re Claim 3,
Knippen discloses the electronic device comprises a tablet, mobile device, desktop computer, or laptop computer (¶¶0020, 0031).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached on 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights