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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 04/17/2025.
The amendments filed on 04/17/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 remain pending. Examiner notes that claims 5-7 and 10 have been presently amended although the status indicators state they are the original claims. Claims 8, 17, and 18 are not presently although the status indicators state they are amended. Any subsequent filing of claim amendments should follow the correct form according to 37 CFR 1.121(c).
The previous objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments. However the amendments introduce new issues detailed below.
The previous prior art rejection of the claims have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see page 9 of the remarks that the “claims have been amended to overcome the rejections under sections 101”. However, the amended claims still recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Briefly the claims are directed to using observations from video images to make an evaluation. This process is done by collecting the images by a video camera and then processing them using a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended independent claim 1 recites “wherein the non-linear dataset provides greater sensitivity than the raw data only for the neural network”. Amended independent claims 11 and 20 recite analogous limitations. However, neither the original claims, original drawings, nor the specification as originally filed provides support for this limitation. Applicant has not indicated where support for this amendment can be found. The specification merely provides support for the data having a non-linear structure (e.g., see [0056] of the pre-grant publication of the instant application). As such, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 contain new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determine body movement analysis features including weight, space, time, wherein each of the body tracking keypoints derive a weight feature [...] a space feature [...] and a time feature” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the weight feature, space feature, and time feature are the body movement analysis features. For the present purposes of examination, they have been interpreted as being the body movement analysis features. Examiner notes that amending the limitation to recite -- determine body movement analysis features including a weight feature, a space feature, a time feature, wherein each of the body tracking keypoints derive [[a]] the weight feature [...] [[a]] the space feature [...] and [[a]] the time feature—would resolve this issue. Further clarification is required. This also applies to the analogous limitations in independent claims 11 and 20.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “said computer comprising a neural network [...] the raw data” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “body tracking raw data”, “the facial raw data”, or both. For the present purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as including both types of raw data. Further clarification is required. This also applies to the analogous limitations of independent claims 11 and 20.
Finally regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the non-linear dataset provides greater sensitivity than the raw data only for the neural network” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the sensitivity is of. Further it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “only for the neural network”. Further clarification is required.
Claims dependent upon a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under the same statute because they each inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis step 1 of Subject Matter Eligibility Test
The claims are directed to a machine (i.e., a system for determining whether a child is at risk for autism spectrum disorder) of claims 1, 3-10, a process (i.e., a method for determining whether a child may be at risk for autism spectrum disorder) of claims 11, 13-19, and a manufacture (i.e., non-transitory computer readable storage media) of claim 20.
Analysis step 2A, Prong I
The claims recite abstract ideas, in particular mental processes, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites “extract body tracking raw data that includes body tracking keypoints and facial raw data that includes facial keypoints from the video images to observe the body movement and facial expressions of the child; and processes the extracted body tracking keypoints and facial keypoints, to determine body movement analysis features including weight, space, time, wherein each of the body tracking keypoints derive a weight feature indicative of intensity of perceived force of movement of the child’s body at the body tracking keypoints, a space feature indicative of distance of the arms of the child relative to the body of the child, and a time feature indicative of a speed of movement of the child’s body at the body tracking keypoints; said computer comprising a neural network, trained on a non-linear dataset that includes the processed body movement analysis features, the body tracking keypoints, and the facial keypoints of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, wherein the non-linear dataset provides greater sensitivity than the raw data only for the neural network, said neural network configured to: receive the body movement features derived from the video images and the facial keypoints extracted from the video images; identify temporal data patterns in the body movement features; and generate a diagnosis indicative of the risk for autism spectrum disorder based on non-linearity in the temporal data patterns in the facial keypoints extracted from the child's facial expressions in the video images of the child performing natural daily activities including playing, and the body movement features derived from the video images of the child of the child's body movement” which encompasses mental observations or evaluations. Claims 11 and 20 recite analogous limitations.
Analysis step 2A, Prong II
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a video camera configured to capture video images of the child” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claim 1 also recites “a computer”. This additional element results in mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Further, claim 1 recites a “neural network”. This limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. Claims 11 and 20 recite analogous limitations.
Claim 3 further defines the neural network however, this limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. Claims 4-6 recite an “emotionally expressive robot” that is merely used to gather data with the video camera and therefore this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claim 7 recites “wherein the video camera is configured to capture video images of the child interacting with the emotionally expressive robot” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claims 8-9 recite “a plurality of sensory stations” that are merely used to gather data with the video camera and therefore this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claim 10 recites “wherein the video camera is configured to capture video images of the child observing the emotionally expressive robot interacting with each of the sensory stations” which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Dependent claims 13-19 recite analogous limitations.
Analysis step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer an neural network is are additional elements that merely result in instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry. The remaining additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering, to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are therefore directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797