DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 03/11/2026 for Application number 17/199,918. Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
determining a baseline behavior vector for each of the plurality of participants according to frame by frame analysis of the audio and video data can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining and tracking a real-time behavior vector for each participant according to audio and video data can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining…, an interaction context according to frame by frame analysis of the audio and video data can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining…, interaction dynamics according to the interaction context can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining…, an interaction trend between a first participant and a second participant, according to the ongoing determination of interaction dynamics can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
detecting…, a bias between the first participant and the second participant according to the interaction trend can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
generating, a remediation action to shift the interaction dynamics can be considered to be an evaluation/judgment in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements - “one or more computer processors”, “iterating…Markov-chain models…using the data”, “persistent memory”, “using a first machine learning model”, “using a second machine learning model”, “updating the baseline behavior vector according to the frame by frame analysis of the audio and video data” and “interjecting, by the machine learning moderator, the remediation action into a current group interaction using a system output device”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, 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.
The claim further recites:
providing a plurality of participants access to group dynamic analysis output over a network. (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
receiving, …over a network, data regarding interactions of the plurality of participants (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
storing, the Markov-chain models in a diction in persistent memory (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
storing, the interaction trend in persistent storage (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
storing, the bias in persistent storage (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
providing, … an output relating to the bias (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
providing, … over the network, the remediation action to the machine learning moderator (This is an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP §2106.05(g))
These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, 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. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing “one or more computer processors”, “iterating…Markov-chain models…using the data”, “persistent memory”, “using a first machine learning model”, “using a second machine learning model, and “machine learning moderator” to perform the steps of the claimed process amount 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. Furthermore, the limitations of:
providing a plurality of participants access to group dynamic analysis output over a network
receiving, …over a network, data regarding interactions of the plurality of participants
providing, to a machine learning moderator…, an output relating to the bias
providing, … over the network, the remediation action to the machine learning moderator
are well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Additionally, the limitations of:
storing, the Markov-chain models in a dictionary in persistent memory
storing, the interaction trend in persistent storage
storing, the bias in persistent storage
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv), “Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites:
determining, a baseline personality trait, for the at least one participant;
adjusting, the stored baseline personality trait according to interaction data associated with the at least one participant.
These limitations recite additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim further recites:
receiving, by the one or more computer processors, data regarding at least one of the plurality of participants;
storing, by the one or more computer processors, the baseline personality trait in a repository
These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and are also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “transmitting data over a network” and MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv), “Storing and retrieving information in memory”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the first machine learning model comprises a reinforcement learning model. The limitation amounts to generally linking the additional element to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP §2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the second machine learning model comprises a big five personality model. The limitation amounts to generally linking the additional element to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP §2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: determining, by the one or more computer processors, which participant is speaking at each moment and how much each participant speaks during the interaction. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein detecting a bias between the first participant and the second participant according to the interaction trend comprises detecting a bias according to eye contact of a speaker. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein detecting a bias between the first participant and the second participant according to the interaction trend comprises detecting bias according to cues associated with an overridden participant. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding Claims 9-14, they recite features similar to claims 2-7 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites features similar to claims 1 and 8 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Regarding Claims 16-20, they recite features similar to claims 2-6 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that claim 1’s features are integrated into the practical application in a manner which imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged judicial exceptions. Specifically, the practical application of a group dynamics analysis and intervention system and method at least by providing improvements in the functioning of a computer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed towards the improvement of a group dynamics analysis rather than any improvement in the functioning a computer. The claims broadly recite the use of generic machine learning and computer components as tools to perform the recited steps of the claimed invention. There are no details in the claims that reflect any sort of improvement of a computer, hardware processor or training of a machine learning model. Merely using generic computer components as tools to perform the judicial exception or use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserts that the claims constitute a particular technical solution to a technical problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem described by applicant and in the instant specification is not a technological problem rather it is directed toward eliminating biases that sabotage team effectiveness in a group/team environment. The only “technical” aspect of the claimed invention is the use of generic computers and machine learning, however as noted above they are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, examiner asserts that the claims fail to explicitly reflect any improvement to computer functionality or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they rely upon the allowability of the independent claims
Regarding the Prior art rejection:
As noted in the last office action, the claims have been searched however prior art rendering the claims anticipated or obvious has been uncovered. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122