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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1, 9-10, 21-22, 24-26, 33-35, 39, 51-52, 55-56, 65, and 68 in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
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, 9-10, 21-22, 24-26, 33-35, 39, 51-52, 55-56, 65, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a method of determining a mood score which can be performed in the mind without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 9-10, 21-22, 24-26, 33-35, 39, 51-52, 55-56, 65, and 68 are a method and thus fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea:
receiving a first verbal communication value for each of a plurality of parameters from an audio sensor, each of the first values being associated with (i) a user and (ii) a first day;
receiving a second value for each of the plurality of parameters from a mobile device or a wearable device, each of the second values being associated with (i) the user and (ii) a second day that is subsequent to the first day;
determining, for each of the plurality of parameters, a trend indication, the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first values, the second values, and a first time period;
determining a base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters, the base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the associated determined trend indication; and
determining a mood score, based on the base weight value for each of the plurality of
parameters.
via a processor;
All of these limitations, at the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a method of organizing human activity and mental process except for the recitation of “via a processor”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II and III.
All of these steps can be performed by a human mind. For example, a human can receive an audio cue and a written mood ranking from a user for subsequent days and based on that data, determine whether the user in a better or worse mood based on whether they sound more chipper and whether they indicated what mood they were in and then indicate a total mood score.
Examiner notes that the claim does not require any limitations for collecting or generating the input data including the verbal communications or the data from the mobile device or wearable device, but only requires that the data be received
As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following elements do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
The “via a process” is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic circuitry, performing a generic computer function of collecting and processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additionally limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, the generic computer functions merely are being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus it is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-10, 21-22, 24 further limit the abstract idea of the trend indication.
Dependent claims 25-26 and 33-35 and 39 further disclose an intermediate trend indication, also an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 51-52 and 55-56 further limit the type of sensor used to collect the data that is received in the claim, which does not further limit the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 65 and 68 further include the determination of a mental state which is also an abstract idea that can also be performed in the mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9-10, 21-22, 24-26, 33-35, 39, 51-52, 55-56, 65, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUI WANG ET AL: "Tracking Depression Dynamics in College Students Using Mobile Phone and Wearable Sensing", PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM ON INTERACTIVE, MOBILE, WEARABLE AND UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGIES, ACM, 2 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 701NEW YORKNY10121-0701USA, vol. 2, no. 1, 26 March 2018 (2018-03-26), pages 1-26, XP058398749, DOI: 10.1145/3191775 (As cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Reid et al. (USPN 10,376,195).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method including (e.g. Figure 1):
receiving a first communication value for each of a plurality of parameters from a sensor, each of the first values being associated with (i) a user and (ii) a first day (see $5.1 "symptom features", fig. 1);
receiving a second value for each of the plurality of parameters from a mobile device or a wearable device, each of the second values being associated with (i) the user and (ii) a second day that is subsequent to the first day (e.g. data collected for “trend indications);
determining, for each of the plurality of parameters, a trend indication, the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first values, the second values, and a first time period via a processor (see §5.2 "We compute the term; mean, standard deviation, and the slope of each symptom features described in Section 5.1", "The term standard deviation describes the variations in the daily symptom feature" corresponds to the "short-term trends" in the present application" while the "the term slope features describe how the daily symptom features change over the term. We fit the daily feature time series with a linear regression model and use the regression coefficient as the slope" corresponds to the "long-term trends" of the present application);
determining a base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters, the base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the first time period and the associated determined trend indication (e.g. weighted values as disclosed below); and
determining a mood score, based on the base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters see §5.3 "we use lasso regularized linear regression to predict pre-post PHQ-8 scores. The lasso regularization selects features that are predictive of the outcome by penalizing irrelevant features' weights to zeros. Before training the model, we normalize each feature to have zeros mean and one standard deviation": the predicted score correspond to the "mood score" and the "penalizing" and "normalize" steps define the "base weight values" for each parameter, in particular the long term "slopes" and short term "variations").
Wang does not expressly disclose that the first communication is a verbal communication from an audio sensor. Reid discloses it was known in the art of mood assessments to collect data via verbal responses (e.g. as disclosed in Col. 3, lines 10-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the verbal data collection of Reid in the method of Wang in order to provide the system with the predictable results of a reliable means of collecting mood data.
Regarding claim 9, Wang additionally discloses wherein determining the trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters includes determining a rate of change between at least the first value and the second value for each of the plurality of parameters during the first time period, and wherein the rate of change is associated with a slope of a line that is fitted to at least the first value and the second value (e.g. slopes as calculated in § 5.2 for short term and long term trends).
Regarding claim 10, Wang additionally discloses wherein the trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is one of a positive trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is greater than a first slope threshold or a negative trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is less than a second slope threshold. (e.g. slopes as calculated in § 5.2 for short term and long term trends).
Regarding claim 21, Wang additionally discloses wherein the determined base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters is based on a set of predetermined initial base weight values (e.g. section 5.2; "penalizing" and "normalize" steps define the "base weight values" for each parameter).
Regarding claim 22, Wang additionally discloses receiving a true mood score, the true mood score being associated with: (i) the user; and (ii) the second day that is subsequent to the first day; and modifying the set of predetermined initial base weight values based at least in part on the true mood score (e.g. short and long term trends).
Regarding claim 24, Wang additionally discloses wherein the modifying the set of predetermined initial base weight values includes using a machine learning algorithm (e.g. as disclosed in 5.2).
Regarding claim 25, Wang additionally discloses receiving an intermediate value for each of the plurality of parameters, each one of the intermediate values being associated with: (i) the user, and (ii) an intermediate day that is subsequent to the first day and prior to the second
day; wherein the trend indication is also based on the intermediate values (e.g. trend indications that include more than one day).
Regarding claim 26, Wang additionally discloses determining, for each of the plurality of parameters, an intermediate trend indication, the intermediate trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the intermediate values, the second values, and an intermediate time period; and determining an intermediate base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters, the intermediate base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters being based at least in part on the intermediate time period and the associated determined intermediate trend indication wherein determining the mood score is further based on the intermediate base weight value for each of the plurality of parameters (e.g. short and long term trends as disclosed above).
Regarding claim 33, Wang additionally discloses wherein the determining the intermediate trend indication for each of the plurality of parameters includes determining a rate of change between at least the intermediate value and the second value for each of the plurality of parameters during the intermediate time period (e.g. short term trend wherein the slope is calculated).
Regarding claim 34, Wang additionally discloses wherein the rate of change is associated with a slope of a line fitted to at least the intermediate value and the second value (e.g. short term trend wherein the slope is calculated).
Regarding claim 35, Wang additionally discloses wherein the intermediate trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is one of a positive trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is greater than a first slope threshold; or a negative trend indication responsive to a determination that the slope of the fitted line is less than a second slope threshold (e.g. short term trend wherein the slope is calculated).
Regarding claim 39, Wang additionally discloses wherein the intermediate trend indication for a first one of the plurality of parameters is one of a stable-good intermediate trend indication responsive to determining that (i) the slope of the fitted line is within a range of slope thresholds and (ii) an average of at least the intermediate value and the second value are a range of healthy threshold values; or a stable-bad trend indication responsive to determining that (i) the slope of the fitted line is within a range of slope thresholds and (ii) an average of at least the intermediate value and the second value are outside the range of healthy threshold values (e.g. short term trend wherein the slope is calculated).
Regarding claim 51, Wang additionally discloses wherein each of the plurality of parameters is determined based at least in part on data generated by one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors is a microphone, a camera, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, or a motion sensor. (e.g. microphone as part of “raw sensing data” as taught in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 52, Wang additionally discloses wherein each of the plurality of parameters is determined based at least in part on data generated by one or more sensors, wherein at least one sensor is physically coupled to or integrated with a user device; physically coupled to an activity tracker; or physically coupled to a heartrate monitor (e.g. raw sensing data as shown in Figure 1 which can include a heartrate monitor as shown).
Regarding claim 55, Wang additionally discloses wherein the plurality of parameters includes speed of talking during verbal communication and length of pauses between
sentences during verbal communication (e.g. speak and conversational interactions as taught in section 5.1 on page 43:10)
Regarding claim 56, Wang and Reid disclose the claimed invention except the express mention of thee spoken language during verbal communication includes at least one of the percentage of non-primary language spoken by the user, or the number of swear or frustration words spoken by the user. It is well known that the number of swear or frustration words used by a person can be directly related to their mood. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the number of swear or frustration words spoken by the user as a measurement of verbal communications, since such a modification would provide the system with the predictable results of a reliable means of determining a mood parameter.
Regarding claim 65, Wang additionally discloses determining a mental
state of the user based at least in part on the mood score, wherein the mental state is determined to be a first mental state responsive to the mood score satisfying a first range of values, and the mental state is determined to be second mental state responsive to the mood score satisfying a second range of values (e.g. short and long term trends).
Regarding claim 68, Wang additionally discloses wherein the mental state is depression,
and wherein the method further comprising treating the user for depression (e.g. Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/Amanda K Hulbert/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights