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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 12/3/2025 in which claims 1, 6, 10-13, 17-18, 20, and 22 have been amended, new claims 23-27 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-6, 8, and 10-27 are pending in the application.
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 1-6, 8, and 10-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing feedback to a user related to mental health without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 17, and 20.
Claim 20 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 20 describes one or more sensors that measure sensing data, the sensing data: representative of one or more actions of the user, and including global positioning system (GPS) data and communication data; one or more displays that display daily check-in questions to the user; an input/output device that receives inputs from the user, in response to the daily check-in questions, the one or more inputs comprising self-assessment data; and a controller that: extracts one or more features from the sensing data and the self-assessment data, wherein: the one or more features comprise an amount of time that the user is at home, and an amount of the user is engaged in self-focus, the extracting the one or more features from the sensing data comprises: determining, from the GPS data, GPS coordinates of the user, determining whether at least a portion of the GPS coordinates of the user are within a geofenced area, the geofenced area determined based on a location of the home, and determining, based on the portion of the GPS coordinates within the geofenced area, the amount of time that the user is at the home, determining, from the communication data, first person pronoun usage, and determining, based on the first person pronoun usage, the amount the user is engaged in self-focus, extracts one or more features from the sensing data and the self-assessment data, extracts one or more patterns based on the one or more features, and generates, based on an individualized output from one or more machine-learning models, the feedback related to the mental health of the user; and wherein: the one or more displays provide the feedback to the user, the feedback includes an individualized notification to engage in positive behavioral changes, and the one or more machine-learning models: are trained by initial trial data, receive inputs comprising one or more of: the one or more patterns, mood ratings, intervention techniques, and patterns of clinical improvement, wherein: the mood ratings are determined based on the self-assessment data, and the one or more patterns include deviations from a value associated with the user determined based on the sensing data and the self-assessment data, and determine the individualized output comprising recommended intervention techniques for achieving a pattern of clinic improvement according to the one or more patterns and the mood ratings. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of providing feedback to a user related to mental health which may correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity and thus the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements of one or more sensors, an input/output device, a controller, machine-learning models, and a display do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 20 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of one or more sensors, an input/output device, a controller, machine-learning models, and a display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of one or more sensors, an input/output device, a controller, machine-learning models, and a display are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of one or more sensors, an input/output device, a controller, machine-learning models, and a display are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claims 1 and 17 and hence these claims are rejected on similar grounds as claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-16, 18-19, and 21-27 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 17, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-6, 8, and 10-27 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-21 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claims are integrated into a practical application by providing “a system and method for BA that is more automated (e.g., more than just tracking the user’s self-assessed mood) and less burdensome, including automatically sensing and tracking a user’s activities and interactions.” In addition, the claims “increase compliance and improve the accuracy of the inferences gained from the system,” “develop[] a behavioral change plan that reduces the number and/or duration of in-person therapy sessions,” “provide support for a behavioral change plan that is actively implemented in between in-person therapy sessions,” “quantify[] the user’s personalized mental health based on information collected over a period of time, “enhance[e] wellbeing and patterns of behavior derived from this collected information.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the use of a computer to automate a manual process does not support technical improvement to computer functionality. It merely automates a manual process which is nothing but applying the abstract idea with the use of a computer. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 105, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (fed. Cir. 2017) may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. The machine-learning model(s) and training the models steps are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to the use of computers in implementing the claimed steps of the invention. In doing so, the machine learning models automate various steps by analyzing the data and outputting recommendation, however, it does not provide any technical improvement or provide technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding various dependent claims 10, 12, 21, and 23-27, extracting data as an input to the machine learning models is characterized as an abstract idea and the presence of a machine learning model is characterized as an additional element which is simply applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement when extracted data is inputted into a machine learning model. The machine learning model analyzes the extracted data and outputs a recommendation for the user. The features claimed in the dependent claims do not provide any technical solution to a technical problem or provide any technical improvement.
With regard to claim 22, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as GPS data-derived amount of time that the user is at the home and keyboard data-derived sentiment features are simply data that have been collected and inputted into a machine learning model. The model then analyzes this data to provide a suggestion to improve the user’s mental health condition. In this case, the improvement is not technical in nature. The improvement is to an abstract idea that improves user’s mental health condition. These improvements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, novelty over the prior art is not an indication of technical improvement and is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684