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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of 0/8/07/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the applicant argues that a) an intervention tracking model on a user device and b) a trained statistical model on a server computer cannot be performed in the human mind. The examiner would like to direct the applicant to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) & (C)(3). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) discloses that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) discloses using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. The applicant is “training a statistical model” using a server to analyze and classify specific information based on the specified collected data, output a result based on analysis and use user input to further train the statistical model. This process in itself is a mental process that uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process. The limitations of training, collecting, analyzing and tracking are processes of the human mind. The process of presenting the information is consider by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra solution activity. For these reasons, the examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for information overweigh detection and intervention, the method comprising: training, by a server computer, a statistical model to classify salient information regarding events experienced by individuals or to which the individuals are exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the events may be overweighted by the individuals to provide a trained statistical model; collecting, from a user device, data from a user about the salient information regarding events experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed; analyzing the salient information using the trained statistical model to classify the salient information and predict an event experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the identified event maybe overweighed by the that the user; presenting, by the user device, one or more interventions to the user to prevent the user from overweighing the likelihood of the reoccurrence of the identified overweight information; and tracking, by an intervention tracking model on the user device, user reactions to the one or more interventions to update the trained statistical model on the server computer.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “training, by a server computer, a statistical model to classify salient information regarding events experienced by individuals or to which the individuals are exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the events may be overweighted by the individuals to provide a trained statistical model; analyzing the salient information using the trained statistical model to classify the salient information and predict an event experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the identified event maybe overweighed by the that the user;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping and/or mental process grouping, while “tracking, by an intervention tracking model on the user device, user reactions to the one or more interventions to update the trained statistical model on the server computer,” is treated by the examiner as a mental process or insignificant extra solution activity.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 9 and 17.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: server computer, user device
In Claim 9: non-transitory computer-readable medium, server computer
In Claim 17: server computer
The additional element of non-transitory computer-readable medium, server computer and user device are generally recited and are not qualified as a particular machines.
Further, limitations: “collecting, from a user device, data from a user about the salient information regarding events experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed; presenting, by the user device, one or more interventions to the user to prevent the user from overweighing the likelihood of the reoccurrence of the identified overweight information,” are defined by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra solution activity, mere data gathering/outputting.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, No prior either or suggest, alone or in combination a method for information overweigh detection and intervention, the method comprising: training, by a server computer, a statistical model to classify salient information regarding events experienced by individuals or to which the individuals are exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the events may be overweighted by the individuals to provide a trained statistical model; collecting, from a user device, data from a user about the salient information regarding events experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed; analyzing the salient information using the trained statistical model to classify the salient information and predict an event experienced by the user or to which the user is exposed, in which a likelihood of a reoccurrence of the identified event maybe overweighed by the that the user; presenting, by the user device, one or more interventions to the user to prevent the user from overweighing the likelihood of the reoccurrence of the identified overweight information; and tracking, by an intervention tracking model on the user device, user reactions to the one or more interventions to update the trained statistical model on the server computer.
It is for this reason, Claim and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Claim 9 and 17 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, an is, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed.
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 MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863