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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 20 June 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for the foreign patent document, but only the abstract of the foreign patent document is translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. An English language translation of the Abstract is not considered an English translation meriting the checking of the English language translation box. While footnote 5 identifies that “Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language translation is attached”, this is with respect to the document itself. The Abstract is considered a concise explanation of relevance of the document which is distinctly different from a translation. See at least MPEP 609.04(a) Content Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement, section (II) Legible Copies, which recites
“37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii) states that if a written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c), a copy of the translation shall accompany the statement. Translations are not required to be filed unless they have been reduced to writing and are actually translations of what is contained in the non-English language information. If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.”
See also MPEP 609.04(a)(III) Concise Explanation of Relevance for Non-English Language Information which also at least more explicitly recites that “[e]ach information disclosure statement must further include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from the specification or part of the specification. If the concise explanation is part of the specification, the IDS listing should include the page(s) or line(s) numbers where the concise explanation is located in the specification” and that “[s]ubmission of an English language abstract of a reference, such as one generated by a foreign patent office, may fulfill the requirement for a concise explanation.” Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 20 June 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, not only is the copy of non-patent literature document cite no. 2 incomplete (the citation states page 10 – page 40, but the document only includes up to page 30), the copy is so blurry as to be illegible.
Specification
The amendment filed 20 June 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The assertion that this “application is the US National Stage… of International Patent Application PCT/IB2023/063196, filed on December 22, 2023, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/434,656, filed on December 22, 2022, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.”
The Filing Receipt mailed 16 April 2026 identifies that this application is the US National Stage of International Patent Application PCT/IB2023/063195, filed on December 22, 2023, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/434,624, filed on December 22, 2022. A national stage application comes from a single PCT application, not multiple PCT applications. The national stage application is, in actuality, the national phase of a single PCT application, and not a separate application.
Additionally, an incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date. See MPEP 608.01(p). Thus, Applicant is not permitted to incorporate subject matter (i.e., foreign priority document International Patent Application PCT/IB2023/063196) by reference after the filing date. As this is a 35 USC 371 national phase application, the filing date is 22 December 2023 of International Patent Application PCT/IB2023/063195. See MPEP 1893.03(b).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 15, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 improperly capitalizes the first word (“receive”) of the first limitation.
Claims 12 and 24 each misspell “additional” in line 6 of each claim.
Claim 15 misspells “data” in line 5 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 18 and 19 depend from canceled claim 17. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claims 18 and 19 are construed as depending from independent claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15, 18, 19, and 22-24 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store information and executable programmed modules;
a virtual reality (VR) apparatus configured to provide audio and visual stimuli to a subject during an evaluation session; and
a processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and the VR apparatus, the processor configured to execute programmed modules stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor configured to:
control the evaluation session to provide an introduction corresponding to the evaluation session, wherein the evaluation session comprises a plurality of scenes, each scene having one or more of one or more virtual characters, one or more animations applied to the one or more virtual characters, displayed text, audio vocalizations of at least a portion of the displayed text, and one or more virtual user interface elements configured to register one or more responses from the subject during the evaluation session;
control the VR apparatus to provide audio and visual stimuli corresponding to a first scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a first prompt;
receive from the VR apparatus a first response to the first prompt from the subject;
store the first response in the non-transitory computer readable medium in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the first response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the first prompt was provided to the subject and when the first response was received from the subject;
select, based on the first response, a second scene for the evaluation session;
control the VR apparatus to provide audio and visual stimuli corresponding to the second scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a second prompt;
receive from the VR apparatus a second response to the second prompt from the subject;
store the second response in the non-transitory computer readable medium in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the second response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the second prompt was provided to the subject and when the second response was received from the subject;
select, based on the second response, a third scene for the evaluation session;
continue to deliver scenes to the subject and receive responses from the subject until a last scene in the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session has been delivered; and
analyze the stored responses from the subject and the corresponding timestamps and time durations to calculate a skill score for the subject related to the evaluation session.
Independent claim 13 recites:
A method comprising:
providing, via a virtual reality (VR) apparatus configured to provide audio and visual stimuli to a subject during an evaluation session, an introduction corresponding to the evaluation session, wherein the evaluation session comprises a plurality of scenes, each scene having one or more of one or more virtual characters, one or more animations applied to the one or more virtual characters, displayed text, audio vocalizations of at least a portion of the displayed text, and one or more virtual user interface elements configured to register one or more responses from the subject during the evaluation session;
providing, via the VR apparatus, audio and visual stimuli corresponding to a first scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a first prompt;
receiving from the VR apparatus a first response to the first prompt from the subject during a first scene;
storing the first response in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the first response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the first prompt was provided to the subject and when the first response was received from the subject;
selecting, based on the first response, a second scene for the evaluation session;
providing audio and visual stimuli corresponding to the second scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a second prompt;
receiving from the VR apparatus a second response to the second prompt from the subject during the second scene;
storing the second response in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the second response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the second prompt was provided to the subject and when the second response was received from the subject;
selecting, based on the second response, a third scene for the evaluation session;
continuing to deliver scenes to the subject and receive responses from the subject until a last scene in the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session has been provided; and
analyzing the stored responses from the subject and the corresponding timestamps and time durations to calculate a skill score for the subject related to the evaluation session.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. This also evidences that these elements also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Lastly, the analyzing steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers [that] may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols” such as “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” and that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store information and executable programmed modules (claim 1), a virtual reality (VR) apparatus (claims 1 and 13), a processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and the VR apparatus, the processor configured to execute programmed modules stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 1), reciting the one or more characters are “virtual” (claims 1 and 13), one or more virtual user interface elements (claims 1 and 13), reciting the one or more additional characters are “virtual” (claims 12 and 24), one or more additional virtual user interface elements (claims 12 and 24). Although some of the claims recite computer components for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). This is evidenced by the lack of significant structure in the figures (i.e., Fig. 1, 2, and 11 merely illustrate elements as non-descript black boxes and stock icons and while Fig. 3-10 illustrate the claimed invention as purely software) and the generic nature in which any structural items are described in the specification. See, for example, at least para. 26-29, 32-45 of the specification which merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using a software application to cause a computer to implement the judicial exception. For instance, para. 28 explicitly identifies that the use of virtual reality is ancillary to the focus of the claimed invention which is entirely on assessment of individuals’ socio-emotional skills (i.e., collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis). Thus, the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. With respect to the non-transitory computer readable medium, the courts have recognized that mere storing and retrieving information in memory is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. In particular, the claims and disclosure as a whole are silent regarding specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Similarly, the VR apparatus, as recited and organized, merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution stimulation and data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed product and the process it performs do not require the use of a particular machine, nor do they result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016)), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the drawings and the specification as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. With respect to the non-transitory computer readable medium, the courts have recognized that storing and retrieving information in memory, respectively, are well-understood, routine, and convention functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (which they are in the instant claims, as well as disclosed) and as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, the focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the computerized system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15, 18, 19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lahvis (US 2017/0188930).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Lahvis teaches a method (claim 13) and a system (claim 1) comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store information and executable programmed modules (Lahvis, para. 98, “Data-holding subsystem 1004 may include one or more physical, non-transitory, devices configured to hold data and/or instructions executable by the logic subsystem to implement the herein described methods and processes.”);
a virtual reality (VR) apparatus configured to provide audio and visual stimuli to a subject during an evaluation session (Lahvis, para. 30, “Display system 108 may output animations to display 104 utilizing virtually any type of technology. Display 104 may include any suitable display device or surface. Non-limiting examples of display 104 include a computer monitor, television, head-mounted display device, a projection screen or wall, tablet, smart phone, mobile device, etc. Specific examples of display technologies that may be used include cathode ray tube displays (CRT), light-emitting diode displays (LED), electroluminescent displays (ELD), electronic paper (E ink), plasma display panels (PDP), liquid crystal displays (LCD), organic light-emitting diode displays (OLED), optical or video projector systems, etc.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled with the non-transitory computer readable medium and the VR apparatus, the processor configured to execute programmed modules stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium (Lahvis, Fig. 1, one or more processors 116), the processor configured to:
control the evaluation session to provide an introduction corresponding to the evaluation session, wherein the evaluation session comprises a plurality of scenes, each scene having one or more of one or more virtual characters, one or more animations applied to the one or more virtual characters, displayed text, audio vocalizations of at least a portion of the displayed text, and one or more virtual user interface elements configured to register one or more responses from the subject during the evaluation session (Lahvis, para. 11, “a computing system that presents a uniform but highly adaptable series of animated characters, objects, social scenarios, and/or sequences of events to target core constructs of autism.”);
control the VR apparatus to provide audio and visual stimuli corresponding to a first scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a first prompt (Lahvis, para. 32, “prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”);
receive from the VR apparatus a first response to the first prompt from the subject (Lahvis, para. 32, “calculate a response of the subject to prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”);
store the first response in the non-transitory computer readable medium in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the first response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the first prompt was provided to the subject and when the first response was received from the subject (Lahvis, para. 31, “images captured by the one or more image captures devices may be stored in a suitable storage medium, e.g., a tangible computer readable medium, for various processing and/or for analysis by a clinician, for example.” Para. 38, “data received from the sensors may be time-stamped and/or may be synchronized with the animation presented on the display.”);
select, based on the first response, a second scene for the evaluation session (Lahvis, para. 42, “Monitoring a subject's response to increases and decreases in tension and distractors presented in an animation provides data from which quantitative metrics for autism assessment may be extracted.” This implies that a second scene is selected based on the first response in what is commonly referred to as dynamic difficulty adjustment.);
control the VR apparatus to provide audio and visual stimuli corresponding to the second scene of the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session, wherein the audio and visual stimuli comprise at least a second prompt (Lahvis, para. 11, “a computing system that presents a uniform but highly adaptable series of animated characters, objects, social scenarios, and/or sequences of events to target core constructs of autism.” Para. 32, “prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”);
receive from the VR apparatus a second response to the second prompt from the subject (Lahvis, para. 32, “calculate a response of the subject to prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”);
store the second response in the non-transitory computer readable medium in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the second response was received from the subject and a time duration corresponding to an elapsed time between when the second prompt was provided to the subject and when the second response was received from the subject (Lahvis, para. 31, “images captured by the one or more image captures devices may be stored in a suitable storage medium, e.g., a tangible computer readable medium, for various processing and/or for analysis by a clinician, for example.” Para. 38, “data received from the sensors may be time-stamped and/or may be synchronized with the animation presented on the display.”);
select, based on the second response, a third scene for the evaluation session (Lahvis, para. 42, “Monitoring a subject's response to increases and decreases in tension and distractors presented in an animation provides data from which quantitative metrics for autism assessment may be extracted.” This implies that a second scene is selected based on the first response in what is commonly referred to as dynamic difficulty adjustment.);
continue to deliver scenes to the subject and receive responses from the subject until a last scene in the plurality of scenes for the evaluation session has been delivered (Lahvis, para. 11, “a computing system that presents a uniform but highly adaptable series of animated characters, objects, social scenarios, and/or sequences of events to target core constructs of autism.” Para. 32, “prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”); and
analyze the stored responses from the subject and the corresponding timestamps and time durations to calculate a skill score for the subject related to the evaluation session (Lahvis, para. 61, “a difference between the subject's estimated emotional response and the expected emotional response may be calculated, and the system 100 may output an indication of the calculated difference. As an example, such indications output by system 100 may comprise a visual indication output to a display device that visually indicates a difference between the estimated response and an expected response. As another example, such indications output by system 100 may comprise a calculated score that quantifies a difference between the estimated response and an expected response.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, wherein selecting the second scene comprises:
selecting the second scene from a plurality of candidate scenes based on the first response, wherein the second scene comprises a behavior of at least one of the one or more virtual characters corresponding to the first response (Lahvis, para. 57, “The second sequence of frames 404 shows the second character 408 exhibiting an active behavior, e.g., speaking to the first character 406, while the first character 406 exhibits a passive behavior, e.g., listening.”).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 15, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13,
(claims 3 and 15) wherein the first response comprises a failure to respond within a threshold time, and the second scene is associated with the failure to respond within the threshold time (Lahvis, para. 66, “a threshold for each construct may be used to compare a subject's specific response to a displayed animation targeting the construct to a control subject's responses to the animation.” Para. 66 then goes on to example threshold time comparisons for gaze-related tasks.); or
(claims 4 and 15) wherein the one or more virtual characters are configured to provide realistic facial expressions based on motion capture datal (Lahvis, para. 54, “the facial expression of character 308 has changed in response to the displayed interaction with the other characters 306, 341, and 343”); or
(claims 5 and 15) wherein the skill score for the subject comprises a set of skill scores associated with a corresponding set of socio-emotional skills (Lahvis, para. 61, “such indications output by system 100 may comprise a calculated score that quantifies a difference between the estimated response and an expected response.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 5 and the method of claim [13], wherein the set of socio-emotional skills comprises skills related to one or more of empathy, assertiveness, self-regulation, communication, social perception, conflict management, social learning, self-awareness, self-esteem, or resilience (Lahvis, para. 41, “As remarked above, the autism constructs correspond to autistic behavioral phenotypes such as joint attention, emotion recognition, shared affect, theory of mind, social engagement, narrative, creativity and imagination, imitation, coherence in storytelling, etc.”).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 19, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 5 and the method of claim [13], further comprising:
(claims 7 and 19) providing, to the subject, an output indicating a first subset of socio-emotional skills for which the subject meets a first corresponding set of threshold levels and a second subset of socio-emotional skills for which the subject does not meet a second corresponding set of threshold levels (Lahvis, para. 41, “As remarked above, the autism constructs correspond to autistic behavioral phenotypes such as joint attention, emotion recognition, shared affect, theory of mind, social engagement, narrative, creativity and imagination, imitation, coherence in storytelling, etc.” Para. 66, “a threshold for each construct may be used to compare a subject's specific response to a displayed animation targeting the construct to a control subject's responses to the animation.”); or
(claims 8 and 19) providing, to the subject, an output indicating the set of skill scores using a first scale and a second scale at different levels of granularity, a description of the set of socio-emotional skills, and an explanation of how the subject performed (Lahvis, para. 72, “For each construct shown, FIG. 8 shows example calculated gaze times for a subject exhibiting an autism condition (indicated on the graph by gaze time data points below lower thresholds of the intervals, e.g., below lower threshold 806 for construct cl) and a subject exhibiting an absence of an autism condition (indicated on the graph by gaze time data points between upper and lower thresholds of the intervals, e.g., between upper threshold 804 and lower threshold 806 for construct c1).”); or
(claims 9 and 19) providing, to the subject, a graphical summary of the set of skill scores (Lahvis, para. 72, “For each construct shown, FIG. 8 shows example calculated gaze times for a subject exhibiting an autism condition (indicated on the graph by gaze time data points below lower thresholds of the intervals, e.g., below lower threshold 806 for construct cl) and a subject exhibiting an absence of an autism condition (indicated on the graph by gaze time data points between upper and lower thresholds of the intervals, e.g., between upper threshold 804 and lower threshold 806 for construct c1).”).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, further comprising:
collecting, via the VR apparatus, eye movement data related to one or more of eye movements, eye saccades, or eye fixations while providing at least one scene (Lahvis, para. 31, “target of the subject's eye gaze 136 on display 104 at which one or both eyes 134 of subject 106 are directed and/or focused, i.e., a location 138 on the display 104 where the eye gaze 136 or focus of subject 106 intersects the display 104.”).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 10 and the method of claim 22, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Receive, from the VR apparatus, collected eye movement data associated with at least one scene (Lahvis, para. 10, “tracking the subject's eye gaze location on the display during specific scenes occurring within the animation”); and
store the collected eye movement data in association with a timestamp corresponding to when the eye movement data was collected by the VR apparatus, wherein to calculate the skill score for the subject related to the evaluation session the processor is configured to analyze the stored collected eye movement data (Lahvis, Para. 38, “data received from the sensors may be time-stamped and/or may be synchronized with the animation presented on the display.” Para. 67, “if the amount of time a subject's eye gaze targets the predetermined region falls below a standard deviation 606 of the distribution, then an autism condition for the autism construct may be indicated.”).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Lahvis teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of scenes is a first plurality of scenes associated with a first interactive narrative and the evaluation session comprises at least a second plurality of scenes associated with a second interactive narrative, wherein each scene of the second plurality of scenes has one or more of one or more additional virtual characters, one or more animations applied to the one or more additional virtual characters, additional displayed text, additoinal audio vocalizations of at least a portion of the additional displayed text, and one or more additional virtual user interface elements configured to register one or more additional responses from the subject during the evaluation session (Lahvis, at least para. 50-54 describe this), the method further comprising:
continuing to deliver scenes to the subject and receive responses from the subject until the last scene in the first plurality of scenes and the second plurality of scenes for the evaluation session has been delivered (Lahvis, para. 11, “a computing system that presents a uniform but highly adaptable series of animated characters, objects, social scenarios, and/or sequences of events to target core constructs of autism.” Para. 32, “prompts or stimuli provided to the subject while an animation is displayed on display 104.”), wherein calculating the skill score for the subject related to the evaluation session comprises analyzing the received responses associated with the second plurality of scenes (Lahvis, para. 61, “such indications output by system 100 may comprise a calculated score that quantifies a difference between the estimated response and an expected response.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diecker et al. (US 10,783,800 B1, US 11,282,403 B2, US 11,450,220 B2) discloses developing routine and specific task competencies of an individual having an environmental anxiety disorder.
Wall et al. (US 11,176,444 B2) discloses digital therapeutics can comprise a social learning aid for a subject to increase cognitive performance such as, for example, facial engagement and/or recognition or providing feedback during social interactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights