DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 13, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE and amendment filed October 13, 2025. Claims 22-34, 37, and 43-46 are pending, claims 21-27, 30, 32, 33, 37, and 43-46 have been amended, and claims 1-20, 35, 36, and 38-42 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-34, 37, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitations:
(d) processing the input and the facial expression score using a prediction algorithm;
(g) responsive to said determining in (f), providing an applied behavioral analysis therapy to the subject capable of treating the autism spectrum disorder associated with the abnormal facial expression score, wherein the applied behavioral analysis therapy is configured to improve the facial expression score of the subject in claim 21 recites NEW MATTER.
With regard to limitation (d), a review of the Specification discloses that the video of the subject is taken. The video may include observation of the patient in a non-clinical setting and may include certain questions. The video may be recorded by a mobile phone and display on a phone or web interface (See, e.g., ¶¶24,347). Claim 21 recites receiving an input comprising video-based items of at least a face of said subject. Limitation (d) recites processing the video-based items of at least a face of said subject using a prediction algorithm. With regard to limitation (d) the specification describes that videos are scored by analysts, members of a scoring team watch a video and code answers based on subject behavior (See, e.g., ¶¶380-382, 384, 403, 413). The specification further explains, “The answers are numerically encoded from 0-8, where 8 represents ‘not applicable’ or ‘cannot be answered.’ These numbers are converted into a vector and used during the execution of the classifier. The encoded answer of each question is evaluated by the algorithm at each node in the tree, and at each node a score is either increased or decreased. The outcome of this classification pipeline/process is a final score ranging between -10.0 and +10.0. A negative score suggests the presence of autism spectrum disorder, and a positive score suggests that the subject does not have all symptoms.” The specification at ¶429 states “This machine also contains the tools needed for an analyst to score a video and compute the video-based classifier.” The specification also states “The internal software layer contains the code needed to execute the video based classifier (VBC) 6 and the caregiver-directed classifier (CDC) 7 given a vector of answers from the vectorized score sheet RDMS 3.” However, the specification is silent with regard to processing the video-based items of at least a face of said subject using a prediction algorithm. As pointed out above the video and thus the face is coded by an analyst. The coding is then converted to a vector as input to the prediction algorithm or classifier. In addition, the analyst is the one who analyzes the face of the subject and codes the analysis with a number (e.g., a number 0-8, see, e.g., ¶¶405-407,413) which is then then input as a vector to the classifier. As a result, the prediction algorithm does not process the input comprising video-based items of at least a face of the subject, but rather processes the facial expression score. Therefore, the specification does not provide a written description supporting this limitation. The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to read --processing the facial expression score using a prediction algorithm-- which has written description support as pointed out above.
With regard to limitation (g), a review of the Specification discloses that the invention is directed to early detection, screening, and/or risk assessment of the subject with regard to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A subject that is evaluated as high risk for ASD can then be referred to a Dr. for clinical diagnosis and/or treatment. The invention provides a quick screening with high accuracy allowing earlier detection of ASD. In particular, the specification describes “A carefully designed risk report for clinicians that includes a preliminary diagnosis, the video of the subject, recommendations for therapy (e.g., ABA, speech therapy) and detailed summary of scoring. This report is made available via secure access to a clinical care facility prior to clinical workup of the subject. (4) A carefully designed risk report for the care provider that includes a recommendation for follow up, contact details and locations of nearest clinical facilities offering diagnosis and treatment, and a collection of educational materials to browse for more information about the subject's potential condition”(see, e.g., ¶¶27, 385, 386) (emphasis added). According to the specification, a method and a system provide screening and generate a score with recommendations for therapy, such as applied behavioral analysis and speech therapy, but there is no description of the method or the system of actually providing the therapy to the subject. ¶66 mentions treating a test subject for the disorder, but there are no examples or description of what the treatment is or how it is provided.
Moreover, there is no description of providing an applied behavioral analysis therapy to the subject capable of treating the autism spectrum disorder associated with the abnormal facial expression score. In addition, there is no description of the applied behavioral analysis therapy being configured to improve the facial expression score of the subject. The only mention of ABA is at ¶¶27 and 385. In both instances the ABA is referred to as a recommendation. There is no description of the provision of ABA or how it is provided (e.g., configured to improve facial expression score). These two mentions are an example of a report generated by the invention. The description at ¶385 is provided as part of report under the heading “recommendations” stating: “ii. Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) 1. High ‘eye contact’ and ‘showing’ scores indicate patient could benefit from behavioral analysis for support and further evaluation before clinical appointment.” There is no mention of the ABA being “configured” to improve a facial expression score or how this would even be accomplished. Also, the scores mentioned are for “eye contact” and “showing” and do not mention an abnormal facial score (e.g., the scoring mentioned in ¶159). Finally, the disclosure of the ABA recommendation is followed by the following description “The material contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnoses, or suggestions for treatment.” This is suggestive that treatment is not provided.
As a result, the amended claim 21 contains subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claim 21 is found to fail the written description requirement.
Claims 22-34, 37, and 43 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also lack written description based on their dependency.
As a result, claims 21-34, 37, and 43 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claims 21-34, 37, and 43 are found to fail the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 44-46, these claims depend from a cancelled claim and therefore are indefinite. Based on Applicant’s remarks, it is believed these claims should have been canceled in the last amendment.
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 21-34, 37, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 21-40 are directed to a method and a system. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The present invention relates generally to a method, system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and apparatus for diagnosis of an illness or disorder. Specifically, in one embodiment, a mobile (e.g., web, smart device or the like) tool that enables rapid video-based screening of children for risk of having an autism spectrum disorder is disclosed.” (See, e.g., ¶2 of spec.) “In one embodiment of the present invention, a test is provided that takes about 7 questions to complete and requires creation and submission of a relatively short home video to a system according to the present invention.” (See, e.g., ¶12 of spec.) “The tool is designed to speed the process of diagnosis and increase coverage of the population.” (See, e.g., ¶12 of spec.) “The present invention may be used in conjunction with a remotely located team of trained researchers, trained to score a video uploaded by a person utilizing the present invention.” (See, e.g., ¶19 of spec.)
Representative claim 21 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method for treating a subject for autism spectrum disorder, said method comprising:
A method for treating a subject for autism spectrum disorder, said method comprising:
(a) subjecting the subject to a behavioral evaluation for the autism spectrum disorder;
(b) receiving, via a user interface of an electronic display of a computing device, an input comprising video-based items of at least a face of the subject during the subjecting in (a);
(c) determining a facial expression score of the subject, wherein determining the facial expression score includes evaluating, by a clinical analyst, a facial expression of the subject, based at least in part on the video-based items;
(d) processing the input and the facial expression score using a prediction algorithm, wherein the prediction algorithm includes at least one machine learning model that is trained with training data corresponding to a plurality of individuals having autism spectrum disorder;
(e) determining, based at least in part on the processing in (d), an evaluation result indicating that the autism spectrum disorder is present in the subject;
(f) based at least in part on the evaluation result determined in (e) and the facial expression score determined in (c), determining that the autism spectrum disorder of the subject is associated with an abnormal facial expression score; and
(g) responsive to said determining in (f) providing an applied behavioral analysis therapy to the subject capable of treating the autism spectrum disorder associated with the abnormal facial expression score, wherein the applied behavioral analysis therapy is configured to improve the facial expression score of the subject.
The underlined portions of claim 21 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 22-34, 37, and 43 further define the abstract idea, such as by defining the inputs, outputs, and/or content of the abstract idea.
Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes. The invention encompasses making judgments based on observation and training. These judgements evaluate whether a subject has a behavioral disorder, a developmental delay, or a neurological impairment. Such judgments about a user’s mental fitness as drafted are directed to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of computer implemented or generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a machine learning model (claim 21), nothing in the claimed method or system precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For example, a doctor (trained by previous education, observation and identification of autism in individuals) can watch a video of a subject, view the subject’s facial expressions, score the responses; think to themselves whether the expressions are indicative of ASD or compart to scores of others and determine the individual has ASD, and then recommend and/or provide therapy to the individual based on the determination.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. Here the claims appear to recite an improvement to the mental processes (e.g., how should a subject be evaluated to determine a mental disorder based on observed data) and address the abstract problem of does a person have a developmental disorder or mental impairment. However, to be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer. Applicant’s invention does not meet this requirement. Applicant’s invention uses computers to process input data and to output a result. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and components as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or solve an abstract (non-technical) problem. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
In particular, the claims do not recite any additional structural elements other than the recitation of generic computer components, such as a processor, a memory, computer readable medium, program instructions and use of a machine learning model. These components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computers performing a generic computer function of executing software) and are used for their intended purposes, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions of how to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accessing video data about a subject is insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering for the mental processes.
In addition, the claimed invention does not affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims recite a step of providing an applied behavioral analysis therapy to the subject capable of treating the autism spectrum disorder associated with the abnormal facial expression score, wherein the applied behavioral analysis therapy is configured to improve the facial expression score of the subject. While ABA is a treatment, it is not a “particular” treatment that integrates an abstract idea into a specific process. For example, the claim broadly recites a general treatment without any specifics, such as amounts, times, length, or any specifics/details of the treatment that ties to the inventive concept other than that ABA is a recognized treatment. Moreover, Applicant’s description does not provide any details about the provision of such therapy except one mention as a recommendation. The administration of step is not particular, and is instead merely an instruction to "apply" the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application.
Moreover, the broadest reasonable interpretation and support for this limitation of providing therapy according to Applicant’s specification is to provide a report that includes a “recommendation” for therapy based on the evaluation result. The method and system do not actually administer the therapy but provide the report with recommendations. This is akin to writing a prescription of a medicine without the required use or step of actually administering the medicine in accordance with the abstract concept. Accordingly, the 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 and are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: a method and a computing system including a hardware processor executing instructions stored in a computer memory to implement a machine learning model (configured to perform the abstract idea) all of which are previously known and/or recited at a high level of generality.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to implement a machine learning model are presently claimed at a high level of generality, such that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. The machine learning model is simply used for its general, intended purpose of making judgements about data to determine a result. The claims as presently recited do not provide any specific implementation or details of the artificial intelligence model beyond what is well-understood, routine, conventional, such as, for example, the specific information about the configuration of the model, such as type, makeup (e.g., the structure of its layers, the specific features used, weights assigned to the features, the number of inputs and outputs), and/or how it is trained and/or used to determine the presence or absence of the behavioral disorder, the developmental delay, or the neurological impairment. Therefore, the claims recite the use of a generic computer used for its intended purpose, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step or element does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Again, the machine learning is recited at basic or high level and is used in the well-understood, routine, and conventional way that is typical machine learning functions. The inputs used to train the machine learning are insignificant extra-solution activity and recited at a high level of abstraction.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 21-34, 37, and 43 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 13, 2025, have been fully considered.
The rejection of claims 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, 37, and 38 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
With regard to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The examiner agrees, as stated above, that the specification supports amended part (c) determining a facial expression score of the subject, wherein determining the facial expression score includes evaluating, by a clinical analyst, a facial expression of the subject, based at least in part on the video-based items. However, the specification does not support for part (d) that video-based items are processed by the prediction algorithm. In stead it is the facial expression scores that are processed by the algorithm. This is not addressed in Applicant’s remarks or amendments; therefore, the rejection is maintained for the reasons provide above. The examiner suggests amending part (d) to read --d) processing the facial expression score using a prediction algorithm--.
With regard to part (g) Applicant argues “the instant specification, at paragraph [0066] states that "[i]n another embodiment of this aspect, the one or more computer programs further comprise instructions for: treating a test subject for the disorder." While this paragraph supports treatment, it does not specify what the treatment is, e.g., therapy or drugs, or any details thereof.
Applicant also further argues “As another example, the instant specification, at paragraph [0014] states that ‘[o]ne advantage of the present invention is, for example, facilitating the provision of therapy for a subject as early as possible.’ Therefore, the instant specification, yet again, provides support for providing a treatment to a subject with ASD.” The examiner disagrees. The specification discusses the importance of early diagnosis in order to receive treatment in a timely manner when it is most beneficial. Therefore, the way the invention “facilitates” the provision of therapy is to make the patient aware they need therapy at an earlier date and not the actual provision of the therapy itself.
Applicant also provides “As still another example, the instant specification at paragraph [0249], states that ‘African American children spend more time in treatment before receiving an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis (Bernier, et al., ‘Psychopathology, families, and culture: autism,’ ChildAdolesc Psychiatr Clin NAm, 2010, 19(4):855-867).’ Bernier et al., which is incorporated by reference in the instant specification in its entirety, states on page 861 that ‘differences in child-rearing practices and cultural values between and among racial and ethnic groups have implications that providers must consider when designing and implementing a treatment plan.’ Bernier et al. further states, on page 863, that ‘[o]ften parents have to develop a unique program for their child based on a combination of public and private resources encompassing behavioral interventions, such as applied behavioral analysis (ABA) or Floor Time therapy, speech and occupational therapy, and social skills training.’ Therefore, the instant specification provides support for determining and providing a specific treatment of ABA therapy for a subject with ASD.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bernier appears to support that ABA as one possible treatment for Autism. However, the quoted part in the specification appears to support that earlier diagnosis is important and what appears to be Applicant’s invention. Moreover, the Bernier publication mentions ABA as one of several treatments. There is no description of which treatment is provided, under what conditions it is provided and when and how it is implemented in any application. In addition, Bernier do not provide any description of providing ABA for autism spectrum disorder in association with an abnormal facial expression score. In addition, there is no description of any particular implementation of ABA such that it would provide support as to how to configure the ABA to improve a facial expression score of the subject, as presently claimed by Applicant.
With regard to the rejection of claims 21-34, 37, 38, and 40-46 under Section 101, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant makes two arguments. The first is directed to the claims as a whole represent an improvement in a technical field and the second is a particular treatment that integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application; however, both of these are deficient.
Applicant argues “Applicant submits that the claims as a whole provide an improved technical solution to a technological problem. The technological problem being solved is providing a method for evaluating a subject for autism spectrum disorder based on video-based items and treating the subject. The instant application recognizes that ‘[problems exist in that known methods of assessment and diagnosis of a mental disorder are difficult to obtain due to a lack of access to a sufficient facility, the cost of a diagnosis, the time involved in obtaining a diagnosis and differences in a subject's behavior outside of routine conditions, such as differences in behavior exhibited at home versus in a clinical environment.’ See instant specification, paragraph [0003].”
Applicant continues “As a solution to this technological problem, the claimed invention provides improved methods for evaluating and treating subjects for autism spectrum disorder associated with abnormal facial expression score, based on evaluating a facial expression score of the subject using video-based items. For example, the instant specification, at paragraph [0020], states that the claimed subject matter ‘has a distinct advantage over known methods of diagnosing autism in children in that children are normally more relaxed at home than in a doctor's office or clinical environment. ... trained reviewers are able to see signs of a disorder, such as autism, more easily and more rapidly than with known tools.’”
Applicant continues “As another example, the instant specification, at paragraph [0004], states that the claimed subject matter ‘can include a mobile-health technology to reshape the landscape of autism screening and diagnosis in order to provide increasingly earlier recognition of autism for all families, including those in remote areas, thereby enabling rapid delivery of treatment and therapy early, often, and in the time window when it has greatest impact.’" However, nothing in Applicant’s claims limits or directs that the subject being evaluated is in or from a remote location. Moreover, telemedicine and the remote diagnosis of patients (even for mental disorders) is not new or invented by Applicants (as evidence from just a few of the art cited in the examination of this application). Rather the improvement appears to be in the classifier based on facial scoring to provide a more accurate diagnosis; however, this is directed to the mental process and is not a practical application of the mental process.
Applicant also submits that amended claim 21 recites “a particular treatment that integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. As amended, claim 21 discloses treating the subject with an ABA therapy configured to improve the facial expression score, in response to determining that the subject has an autism spectrum disorder associated with abnormal facial expression score. The recited ABA therapy is therefore a particular treatment for subjects having a particular autism spectrum disorder that is associated with abnormal facial expression score.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. ABA is typically a based on one-on-one interaction with a therapist who creates individualized plans based on a child's unique needs and goals as determined by the therapist. For example, ABA can many different components which include skills development, behavior management, fostering independence using various techniques and concepts, such as the ABC model, positive reinforcement, task chaining, play based learning and discrete trial training. Nothing in Applicant specification or claims provide any details with specificity of how the ABA is provided such that it would amount to particular treatment or therapy tied to Applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant also argues “For example, the instant specification, at paragraphs [0449]-[0470], describe an example evaluation for autism spectrum disorder, in which ‘high 'eye contact' and 'showing' scores indicate patient could benefit from behavioral analysis for support and further evaluation before clinical appointment.’ As another example, the instant specification, at paragraphs [0471]-[0492], describe an example evaluation for autism spectrum disorder in which the subject was determined to ‘[show] some symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.’ However, ABA was notably not recommended, as the subject did not have an abnormal facial expression score.”
However, high 'eye contact' and 'showing' are not facial expressions or based on a facial expression score. Moreover, as explained above no details are provided such that the provision of ABA would be a particular treatment.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under Section 103, Applicant’s amendment and corresponding remarks are considered persuasive; therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. In addition, Alie, Foxx, Kaliouby, do not specifically disclose “(c) determining a facial expression score of the subject, wherein determining the facial expression score includes evaluating, by a clinical analyst, a facial expression of the subject, based at least in part on the video-based items.” Instead, Alie discloses coding the video based on the eye contact with a parent and then feeding the coded video to a classifier to identify the disorder; however, no scoring of a facial expression based on evaluating a facial expression of the subject by a clinical analyst is described and providing the facial expression scoring to the algorithm that is a machine learning algorithm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 on (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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715