DETAILED ACTION
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on June 30, 2026, PROSCEUTION IS HERREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An Appeal Brief was filed June 30, 2026. At present, Office has Reopened Prosecution and entered a new grounds of rejection in this current Non-Final.
This action is in reply to the Appeal Brief filed on June 30, 2026.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 15-22, 24-25 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, 26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In the Appeal Brief filed on June 30, 2026, the Applicant addressed the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) and has applied the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection(s) to claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, 26 described below.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: “The system of claim 22,” in p. 8, ll. 14. This appears to be a typographical error as claim 22 was canceled. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “The system of claim 1,”.
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of claim 25,” in p. 8, ll. 18. This appears to be a typographical error as claim 25 was canceled. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “The method of claim 8,”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, 26: Step 1
Claims 1, 4-7, 23 are drawn to a system, claims 8, 11-14, 26 are drawn to a method (i.e., a machine, a process). Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, 26 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s);
a non-transitory, computer-readable memory;
one or more processors;
a collaboration robot;
an artificial intelligence robot; and
a computer-readable medium containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive, from a first user device, a service request from a patient for a mental health evaluation through a first instant message channel, wherein the service request comprises one or more chief reasons related to a mental health condition of the patient and that caused the patient to send the service request, and wherein the collaboration robot dynamically selects and manages the first instant message channel;
generate a prompt requesting the patient to respond whether the patient would like to take a full or simplified evaluation for mental health;
generate a questionnaire comprising a list of questions based on the one or more chief reasons for the service request and a patient response to the prompt and a psychiatric rating scale to obtain from the patient additional information related to the one or more chief reasons for the service request;
transmit the questionnaire to the first user device and prompt the patient for a user input to the questionnaire;
receive the user input responsive to the questionnaire and the psychiatric rating scale;
determine the mental health condition of the patient based on the received user input responsive to the questionnaire and the psychiatric rating scale;
generate a preliminary solution by the artificial intelligence robot using a rule-based configuration, a Petri-net based graph implementation, or a neural network-based algorithm with adaptive machine learning and notation, based on the mental health condition of the subject, wherein the preliminary solution comprises a treatment plan and a diagnosis report comprising a psychiatric rating scale summary and evaluation;
transmit to a second user device, through a second instant message channel, the diagnosis report and treatment plan along with the service request and the patient input responsive to the questionnaire to a first psychiatrist and prompt the first psychiatrist to provide a first psychiatrist response that is a confirmation or a modification of the preliminary solution for the mental health condition of the subject, wherein the second instant message channel is different and independent from the first instant message channel to ensure content segregation, wherein the collaboration robot performs dynamic channel switching and data exchange during a service session between the first instant message channel and the second instant message channel;
receive from the second user device, through the second instant message channel, the first psychiatrist response to the diagnosis report;
generate a final solution to the mental health condition of the subject comprising a final diagnosis report and a final treatment plan, based on the received first psychiatrist response and present the final solution to the patient by transmitting the final solution to the first user device, and
send to the first user device a message alerting the patient a risk of one or more disorders related to the mental health condition, wherein the evaluation is provided in the form of percentiles in which patient's scores are compared to the rest of a population,
wherein the collaboration robot (i) manages collaboration among the patient, the first psychiatrist, and the artificial intelligence robot, and (ii) manages channel selection, inter-channel data exchange, channel management, and decision support
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation but for the
recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following
rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory, computer-readable memory;”, “one or more processors;”, “a collaboration robot;”, “an artificial intelligence robot;”, “a computer-readable medium containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors”, “a first user device”, “a second user device” to perform these functions, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed by a person following rules or instructions to determine a prompt requesting the patient to respond, determine a questionnaire comprising a list of questions, determine the mental condition of the patient based on the information collected, determine a preliminary solution based on the mental health condition of the subject, and determine a final solution to the mental health condition of the subject. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of the limitation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform
the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the abstract idea to a
technical environment.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recites “a non-transitory, computer-readable memory;”, “one or more processors;”, “a computer-readable medium containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors”, “a first user device”, “a second user device” at a high-level of generality. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) "merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “receive, from a first user device, a service request from a patient for a mental health evaluation through a first instant message channel, wherein the service request comprises one or more chief reasons related to a mental health condition of the patient and that caused the patient to send the service request,”, “transmit the questionnaire to the first user device and prompt the patient for a user input to the questionnaire”, “receive the user input responsive to the questionnaire and the psychiatric rating scale”, “transmit to a second user device, through a second instant message channel, the diagnosis report and treatment plan along with the service request and the patient input responsive to the questionnaire to a first psychiatrist and prompt the first psychiatrist to provide a first psychiatrist response that is a confirmation or a modification of the preliminary solution for the mental health condition of the subject, wherein the second instant message channel is different and independent from the first instant message channel to ensure content segregation,”, “receive from the second user device, through the second instant message channel, the first psychiatrist response to the diagnosis report”, “transmitting the final solution to the first user device, and send to the first user device a message alerting the patient a risk of one or more disorders related to the mental health condition, wherein the evaluation is provided in the form of percentiles in which patient's scores are compared to the rest of a population” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “a collaboration robot;”, “an artificial intelligence robot;”, “and wherein the collaboration robot dynamically selects and manages the first instant message channel”, “the artificial intelligence robot using a rule-based configuration, a Petri-net based graph implementation, or a neural network-based algorithm with adaptive machine learning and notation”, “wherein the collaboration robot performs dynamic channel switching and data exchange during a service session between the first instant message channel and the second instant message channel” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/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 into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer
configured to perform above identified functions 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. See Alice
573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.")
Additionally, the additional elements of insignificant, extra solution, data gathering
activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP
2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do
not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and Affinity
Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Dependent claims 4-7, 23 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claim 4 further describes determining the final solution to the mental health condition. Similarly, claim 5 describes determining a follow-up solution based on the progression of the mental health condition of the patient. Similarly, claim 6 describes determining a preliminary follow-up solution based on a progression of the mental health condition of the patient. Similarly, claim 7 describes encrypted communication. Finally, claim 23 further describes the disorders. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 4-7, 23 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations
consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claims 4-6 recite
additional limitations that amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the
combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other
technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation
and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8, 11-14, 26 recite similar functions to claims 1, 4-7, 23, but in method form, and lacks the additional element of “a computer-readable medium containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:”.
Distinguishing Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject
matter: Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 23, and 26 distinguish over the prior art. The closest prior art (Godla (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0332021), Marks (U.S. Patent Publication No. 7,596,578), Kassabgi (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0278554), Moturu et al. (U.S. Patent PreGrant Publication No. 2015/0370993)), describes systems, methods, and devices for assessing a patient for medical information, and preparing and sharing a report thereof via a networked environment, combined with a method and system, executed by a server, is disclosed for receiving questions from users regarding one or more topics and providing answers from a set of experts, combined with a method that includes receiving, via a text-based messaging system, a plurality of messages from a user, determining a respective confidence level for each message of the plurality of messages that the respective message has a respective intent corresponding to a respective defined intent, generating, responsive to the defined intent of a first message of the plurality of messages being a structured intent, a first proposed communication from the structured intent, and generating, responsive to the defined intent of a second message of the plurality of messages being a predictive intent and the confidence level of the second message meeting a defined threshold, a second proposed communication from the predictive intent, and combined with a method for modeling behavior and depression state of an individual. However, the prior art does not describe the specific order of the steps of independent claims 1 and 8 as the Applicant’s claims recitation of “a collaboration robot;” to “dynamically select and manage the first instant message channel”, “the collaboration robot performs channel switching and data exchange during a service session between the first instant message channel and the second instant message channel”, and “(i) manages collaboration among the patient, the first psychiatrist, and the artificial intelligence robot, and (ii) manages channel selection, inter-channel data exchange, channel management, and decision support”, and the recitation of “an artificial intelligence robot” to “generate a preliminary solution based on the mental health condition of the subject, wherein the preliminary solution comprises a treatment plan and a diagnosis report comprising a psychiatric rating scale summary and evaluation”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tse et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0189293), describes a healthcare provision and management system receive information about a patient to draft treatment plans.
Boland et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0181722), describes a personalized health care management system that receives a personalized health care plan for a patient and monitors the patient dynamically.
Wilcox-Patterson ("User Interfaces for Patient Centered Communication of Health Status and Care Progress"), describes patient and physician portals to support users making sense an online medication information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights