DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 28 October 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, and 12-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 16-17 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication unit configured to receive a brain wave of a patient” in claim 1, line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-5, 9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-15 are directed toward a system (machine). Claim 16 is directed toward a method (process). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Additionally, claim 17 is non-statutory for failing to recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter for the reasons detailed above. However, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will treat the claim as though it recites a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” which would recite a statutory manufacture.
Claims 1 and 16-17:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined inf the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claims 1, 16, and 17, the claims recite:
preprocess the received brain wave by means of noise cancellation and epoching processing (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a judgment of noise and epoching in order to preprocess the brain wave data)
extract at least one first brain wave feature from the preprocessed brain wave (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to extract a feature from the preprocessed brain wave)
determine at least one second brain wave feature necessary to diagnose mental diseases of the patient among the at least one first brain wave feature and a weight of at least one second brain wave feature (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to determine a brain wave feature and weight to diagnose a mental disease)
generate a decision-making structure comprising a decision tree for diagnosing the mental diseases of the patient, wherein an importance of the at least one second brain wave feature is determined in the process of generating the decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a decision-making structure, with the aid of pencil and paper, based upon user observations)
substitute the at least one second brain wave feature and the weight into the decision-making structure to diagnose the mental diseases of the patient (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to diagnose a mental disease using the observed weights and features)
the decision-making structure which is description information for describing a basis for the diagnosis, a description of the at least one second brain wave feature, and the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation using the generated decision structure)
compare any one of the at least one second brain wave features with a threshold, in each stage of the decision making structure, and determines a next comparison stage comparing the second brain wave feature with the threshold as a result of the comparison (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of a feature against the stages of comparison in the decision making structure. This is analogous to stepping through a diagnostic flow chart to determine the appropriate diagnosis)
wherein the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature is determined in the process of converting the decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to determine the importance of the brain wave feature while converting the decision-making structure)
wherein the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature is obtained by digitizing an influence of the second brain wave feature to diagnose the mental diseases of the patient (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a observation of the importance in diagnosing the mental diseases of the patient)
wherein the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature is determined based on how many times the at least one second brain wave feature is used to diagnose the mental diseases of the patient in the decision-making structure, or a position of a stage where the at least one second brain wave feature is used in the decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to determine an importance of a feature based upon the number of times a position wave feature is used in making a diagnosis or a position of a stage at which the feature is used in making a diagnosis)
wherein the values of the connection weights between the unit… and the at least one second brain wave feature and the connection between the unit… and the diagnosed result are changed while learned by a linear learning algorithm (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation by applying a linear learning algorithm to the values and brain wave features)
converting the represented first formula into a decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a evaluation to convert a formula into a multiple step decision-making structure, such as a flow chart)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations “a communication unit configured to receive a brain wave of a patient” and “visualize and provide the diagnosed result.” These limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process and outputting results. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional limitation “a processor configure to…” and “a computer-readable storage medium storing a program for implementing the control method” which is 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Finally, the claim recites the additional limitations:
using a machine learning model learned for diagnosis of mental diseases
wherein the machine learning model uses a brain wave for each age and a brain wave feature for each channel, the brain wave feature being included in the brain wave for each age, as learning data to diagnose the mental diseases
wherein the machine learning model is composed of an artificial neural network being in the form of an advanced variational autoencoder and is learned such that the at least one first brain wave feature is an input of the artificial neural network and such that the diagnosed result is output as an end result
wherein the artificial neural network is composed of a first recurrent neural network acting as an encoder and a second recurrent neural network acting as a decoder
wherein the input of the first recurrent neural network is the at least one first brain wave feature, the output of the first recurrent neural network is the at least one second brain wave feature, the input of the second recurrent neural network is the at least one second brain wave feature, and the output of the second recurrent neural network is the diagnosis result
wherein a connection between the at least one first brain wave feature and a unit of the first recurrent neural network and a connection between the at least one second brain wave feature and a unit of the second recurrent neural network are all-to-all linear connections
wherein a connection weight is randomly determined as uniform distribution
wherein a value of the connection weight is fixed in an initialization process and is then not changed
wherein a connection between the unit of the first recurrent neural network and the at least one second brain wave feature and a connection between the unit of the second recurrent neural network and the diagnosed result are the all-to-all linear connections
the unit of a first recurrent neural network… the unit of the second recurrent neural network
wherein the generating of the decision-making structure includes representing a result learned from the first recurrent neural network to the at least one second brain wave feature, the second recurrent neural network, and the diagnosed result as a first formula in the machine learning model
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claims disclose the following additional limitations “a communication unit configured to receive a brain wave of a patient” and “visualize and provide the diagnosed result.” These limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process and outputting results. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically and displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory," "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Additionally, the claim recites the additional limitation “a processor configure to…” which is 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Finally, the claim recites the additional limitations:
using a machine learning model learned for diagnosis of mental diseases
wherein the machine learning model uses a brain wave for each age and a brain wave feature for each channel, the brain wave feature being included in the brain wave for each age, as learning data to diagnose the mental diseases
wherein the machine learning model is composed of an artificial neural network being in the form of an advanced variational autoencoder and is learned such that the at least one first brain wave feature is an input of the artificial neural network and such that the diagnosed result is output as an end result
wherein the artificial neural network is composed of a first recurrent neural network acting as an encoder and a second recurrent neural network acting as a decoder
wherein the input of the first recurrent neural network is the at least one first brain wave feature, the output of the first recurrent neural network is the at least one second brain wave feature, the input of the second recurrent neural network is the at least one second brain wave feature, and the output of the second recurrent neural network is the diagnosis result
wherein a connection between the at least one first brain wave feature and a unit of the first recurrent neural network and a connection between the at least one second brain wave feature and a unit of the second recurrent neural network are all-to-all linear connections
wherein a connection weight is randomly de3termined as uniform distribution
wherein a value of the connection weight is fixed in an initialization process and is then not changed
wherein a connection between the unit of the first recurrent neural network and the at least one second brain wave feature and a connection between the unit of the second recurrent neural network and the diagnosed result are the all-to-all linear connections
the unit of a first recurrent neural network… the unit of the second recurrent neural network
wherein the generating of the decision-making structure includes representing a result learned from the first recurrent neural network to the at least one second brain wave feature, the second recurrent neural network, and the diagnosed result as a first formula in the machine learning model
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites the elements:
wherein the description of the at least one second brain wave feature includes a channel name necessary to diagnose the mental diseases of the patient, a brain wave type, and brain wave power in the channel, and connectivity between the channels, and wherein the diagnosed result is information about at least one mental disease the patient is suffering from (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a set of observed information that is evaluated by the user to make a diagnosis)
Claim 4:
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites:
diagnosing the mental diseases of the patient based on the weight and the at least one second brain wave feature in the lowest stage of the decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of a feature against the stages of comparison in the decision making structure. This is analogous to stepping through a diagnostic flow chart to determine the appropriate diagnosis)
Claim 5:
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the machine learning model extracts the at least one second brain wave feature using an advanced variation autoencoder
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the machine learning model extracts the at least one second brain wave feature using an advanced variation autoencoder
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim depends upon dependent claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites the elements:
wherein the values of the connection weights between the unit… and the at least one second brain wave feature and the connection between the unit… and the diagnosed result are randomly determined as uniform distribution and are then changed (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation by applying a uniform distribution to the values and brain wave features)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
With respect to claim , the claim recites the additional elements:
the unit of a first recurrent neural network… the unit of the second recurrent neural network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites the additional elements:
the unit of a first recurrent neural network… the unit of the second recurrent neural network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
With respect to dependent claim 12, the claim depends upon dependent claim 7. The analysis of claim 7 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the recurrent neural network is composed of a plurality of units
wherein the number of units making up the first recurrent neural network is determined to be greater than 100 times the number of the at least one first brain wave feature
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the recurrent neural network is composed of a plurality of units
wherein the number of units making up the first recurrent neural network is determined to be greater than 100 times the number of the at least one first brain wave feature
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim depends upon dependent claim 12. The analysis of claim 12 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the units making up the first recurrent neural network are randomly and recurrently connected with each other and a connection probability between the respective units is determined between from 0.1% to 1%
wherein a connection weight between the units making up the first recurrent neural network is determined as uniform distribution among values between from -1 to 1 and a certain scaling factor is multiplied by connection weights such that an absolute value of the largest eigen value of a connection weight matrix determined subsequently becomes 1 or less
wherein the calculated connection weight matrix is subsequently fixed and is not changed
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the units making up the first recurrent neural network are randomly and recurrently connected with each other and a connection probability between the respective units is determined between from 0.1% to 1%
wherein a connection weight between the units making up the first recurrent neural network is determined as uniform distribution among values between from -1 to 1 and a certain scaling factor is multiplied by connection weights such that an absolute value of the largest eigen value of a connection weight matrix determined subsequently becomes 1 or less
wherein the calculated connection weight matrix is subsequently fixed and is not changed
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14:
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites:
wherein the learning data further includes feedback information of a medical team about the diagnosis of the mental disease (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing receiving additional information in order to improve the user evaluation)
Claim 15:
With respect to dependent claim 15, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites:
determine at least one brain region corresponding to the diagnosed result among cerebral regions of the patient (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of the diagnosed results to identify a corresponding brain region)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the additional elements:
generate stimulation information for stimulating at least one stimulation channel to stimulate a cerebral cortex of the at least one determined brain region and provides the generated stimulation information, and further visualizes and provides the at least one stimulation channel other than the diagnosed result, the decision-making structure, the description of the at least one second brain wave feature, and the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the machine learning model further uses a treatment progress according to stimulation for each region of the cerebrum as learning data other than the brain wave for each age and the brain wave feature for each channel, the brain wave feature being included in the brain wave for each age, to diagnose the mental diseases
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the additional element:
generate stimulation information for stimulating at least one stimulation channel to stimulate a cerebral cortex of the at least one determined brain region and provides the generated stimulation information, and further visualizes and provides the at least one stimulation channel other than the diagnosed result, the decision-making structure, the description of the at least one second brain wave feature, and the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature
These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements:
wherein the machine learning model further uses a treatment progress according to stimulation for each region of the cerebrum as learning data other than the brain wave for each age and the brain wave feature for each channel, the brain wave feature being included in the brain wave for each age, to diagnose the mental diseases
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea because the claims recite a specific ML architecture and specific connection structure and that it is “far removed from the “observation, evaluation, judgement” that the Office Action characterized as a mental process (page 9).” However, the examiner notes that the limitations directed toward the “artificial neural network in the form of an advanced variation autoencoder (VAE), which is further specified as being composed of a first recurrent neural network (RNN) acting as an encoder and a second recurrent neural network (RNN) acting as a decoder (page 9)” and “the VAE/RNN architecture, with its particular rules for fixed and learned linear weights (page 9)” are not considered by the examiner to be a mental process. Instead, limitations related to the VAE and RNNs are considered under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B.
Specifically, these additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more by providing a specific technical solution to a technical problem (pages 9-10). The applicant argues that specific technical solution is “(a) specific VAE/RNN architecture -> (b) mathematical formula -> (c) explainable decision tree (page 10).” However, the applicant’s remarks fail to specify how the claims constitute a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome as opposed to merely claiming the idea of the solution itself. For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
Finally, the applicant argues that the specific computation and operation performed by the processor have not been considered (page 10). First, the examiner notes that these limitations are newly added by the amendment filed 6 November 2025. Further, the examiner indicates “wherein the importance of the at least one second brain wave feature is determined based on how many times the at least one second brain wave feature is used to diagnose the mental diseases of the patient in the decision-making structure, or a position of a stage where the at least one second brain wave feature is used in the decision-making structure (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to determine an importance of a feature based upon the number of times a position wave feature is used in making a diagnosis or a position of a stage at which the feature is used in making a diagnosis).” For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cho et al. (US 2017/0238831): Discloses a training a classifier for classifying filtered brain waves using feature vectors (Abstract)
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 KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128