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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 18, 2025 for the patent application 17/521,784 filed on November 8, 2021. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of May 7, 2025 and the second office action of August 18, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 16 are directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (i.e. “a machine”) and 10 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “administering treatment,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“obtaining patient data related to suicidal ideation and/or attempted suicide of a patient, wherein the patient data indicates timing information related to previously administered suicide treatment of the patient;
adapting, based on the patient data, a suicide treatment of the patient, including adapting a rate or order of the suicide treatment; and
administering, to the patient, the suicide treatment.”
Per claim 10:
“based on information indicating a patient received, within 48 hours before a suicide treatment activity of a list of suicide treatment activities to be administered to a patient is administered to the patient, a separate suicide treatment from an additional list:
adapt, for suicidal ideation and/or attempted suicide of the patient, the list of suicide treatment activities to be administered to the patient; and
send to a patient, suicide treatment activity data indicating the list of suicide treatment activities.”
Per claim 16:
“based on previous progression of a patient through a previous suicide treatment, selecting at least one suicide treatment activity from a first list, the first list including:
an interactive experience tracking module configured to track at least one metric related to behavior of the patient;
instructions on modifying behavior of the patient;
information regarding stimulus control;
relaxation training;
interactive multimedia content for paced breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, imagery-induced relaxation, and/or self-hypnosis;
instructions on use of medication; and
instructions on user monitoring of and adjustment of thoughts of the patient; and
treating the patient by administering, to the patient, the at least one suicide treatment activity within 48 hours of administering at least one other suicide treatment from a second list.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a device,” “at least one processor,” and “a communication network,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “administering treatment,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a device,” “at least one processor,” and “a communication network,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a device,” as described in para. [0071] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0071] In some embodiments, devices 120 may be configured to receive a list of selected treatment activities from computer 110 for administering to the patient. As shown in FIG. 1A, each device 120 includes at least one processor 122 and a memory 124. In some embodiments, devices 120 may be patients' personal devices. For example, devices 120 may include mobile phones belonging to various patients. Alternatively or additionally, devices 120 may include multiple devices for each patient, such as a mobile phone and tablet computer, laptop computer, desktop computer, or other such devices.” As such, the Applicant’s “a device,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element commercially available today.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one processor,” as described in para. [0126] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0126] The above-described embodiments can be implemented in any of numerous ways. For example, the embodiments may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof. When implemented in software, the software code can be executed on any suitable processor or collection of processors, whether provided in a single computer or distributed among multiple computers. Such processors may be implemented as integrated circuits, with one or more processors in an integrated circuit component, including commercially available integrated circuit components known in the art by names such as CPU chips, GPU chips, microprocessor, microcontroller, or co-processor. Alternatively, a processor may be implemented in custom circuitry, such as an ASIC, or semicustom circuitry resulting from configuring a programmable logic device. As yet a further alternative, a processor may be a portion of a larger circuit or semiconductor device, whether commercially available, semicustom or custom. As a specific example, some commercially available microprocessors have multiple cores such that one or a subset of those cores may constitute a processor. Though, a processor may be implemented using circuitry in any suitable format.” As such, the Applicant’s “at least one processor,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element commercially available today.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a communication network,” as described in para. [0083] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0083] Communication network 102 may include a wired and/or wireless network over which computer 110 and devices 120 may communicate. In some embodiments, communication network 102 may also facilitate access to a patient's electronic health records, the patient's healthcare provider, and/or contacts of the patient. In some embodiments, communication network 102 may include the Internet. In some embodiments, communication network 102 may include a local area network (LAN), a wireless local area network (WLAN) such as Wi-Fi, a Bluetooth network, or other suitable networks.” As such, the Applicant’s “a communication network,” is also reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element commercially available today. Thus, the Applicant’s own specification discloses “a device,” “at least one processor,” and “a communication network,” as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 10 or 16. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 18, 2025 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Applicant respectfully argues “While the Applicant continues to disagree with that basis for rejection, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite "previously administered suicide treatment of the patient" and "a suicide treatment of the patient." Briscoe's brain injury protocol is not a suicide treatment, and thus fails to satisfy amended claim 1 for at least this additional reason.
No portion of Briscoe satisfies amended claim 1. For example, as explained in the Previous Response, Briscoe's only mention of a patient's mental condition is in reference to the received patient data (para. 41), not in connection with any treatment.
Nor would Briscoe have been modified to perform suicide treatment. Those of ordinary skill in the art understood that brain injuries and suicide are treated completely differently, in different settings, and by different practitioners. As such, adapting Briscoe's brain injury protocols to treat suicide would have lacked a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 patentably distinguishes Briscoe and is in allowable condition. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, Applicant has disclosed that the timing requirements of claims 10 and 16 solve a stated problem and has a particular purpose related to suicide treatment of a patient. For example, as stated in the present application (paras. 59 and 64), acute treatments that show a reduction in suicide symptoms in the weeks and months thereafter tend to wear off weeks and months later, resulting in an increase in adverse conditions thereafter. Thus, according to the present application, administering suicide treatment described in the present application shortly after administration of separate suicide treatment improves the effectiveness of the separate suicide treatment. In contrast, Briscoe is concerned entirely with treatment of the patient's physical condition and does not teach any improvements to suicide treatment of a patient based on previously administered suicide treatment of the patient.
Accordingly, independent claims 10 and 16 patentably distinguish Briscoe and are in allowable condition. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “While the Applicant continues to disagree with the rejections for the reasons discussed in the Previous Response, the claims have been amended as discussed above. Accordingly, reconsideration is respectfully requested in view of the amendments.
To the extent that any judicial exceptions are recited in the amended claims (which is not conceded), such judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application by improving suicide treatment technology, or because the claimed electronic suicide treatment techniques as a whole were not well-known, routine, or conventional, and thus provide an inventive concept.
The present application (para. 42) provides systems and devices configured to adapt suicide treatment for a patient by adjusting the order, content, and pace at which suicide treatment activities are delivered to the patient; such techniques not only improve patient access to high quality suicide treatment by expanding suicide treatment both within and beyond inpatient clinics (para. 42) but also improve the effectiveness of separate suicide treatments (para. 59).
Indeed, according to the present application (para. 59), separate suicide treatments such as ketamine show positive results immediately after suicide treatment but unfortunately show negative results weeks and months later, which may put patients in a worse suicidal state than without the separate suicide treatment. The present application (p. 64) discloses that adaptive suicide treatment may be delivered shortly after (e.g., based on an indication of) previously administered separate suicide treatment to achieve improved long-term outcomes.
Accordingly, at Step 2A-Prong Two, the claimed recitation of adapted suicide treatment based on timing information of previously administered suicide treatment provides an improvement to suicide treatment technology, which integrates any mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, at Step 2B, the claimed combination of adapting and administering electronic suicide treatment based on timing information of previously administered suicide treatment is not well-known, routine, or conventional. For instance, Briscoe fails to teach or render obvious the electronic suicide treatment adaptation techniques as claimed.
For at least these reasons, the amended claims recite a patent-eligible improvement or inventive concept related to suicide treatment technology.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments with regard to a “Brisco fails to teach or render obvious the electronic treatment adaptation techniques” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion.
Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The lack of prior art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Finally, the Applicant is not claiming a technologically new and improved “device,” “at least one processor,” and “communication network.” Instead, merely an application to be applied to an existing “device,” “at least one processor,” and “communication network,” which does not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.” As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715