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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 6/9/2023 is acknowledged and entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide reasonably clear meanings ascribed to the claim terms “CONNECT services” and “PLUS services” after considering the specification and prior art proper. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 2173.03; see also infra 112(b) rejection for further detail.
Claim Objections
The phrases “virtual mental health system infrastructure” in claim 1 and “explanatory categorizations” in claim 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrases are recited with quotations and suggested to remove the quotations to be consistent with other parts of claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “CPD” in claim 3 and “AI” in claims 8 and 10 recite abbreviations without clearly defining the abbreviations neither in claim nor in specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “peer support mentor consumers; mentor,” which should read “peer support mentor consumers[[;]], mentor.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of digital mental health services is adapted,” which should read “the plurality of digital mental health services [[is]]are adapted.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “user device” in claim 1 and “network device” and “medical device” in claim 10.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A preamble of claim 1 recites the phrase “for providing a plurality of digital mental health services to a user device,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase is modifying. In other words, it is unclear whether the phrase modifies only “a platform” or further modifies “a security system” and/or “one or more servers.”
Claim 1 recites the phrase “PLUS other additional services.” The term “other” is vague which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the “other” refers to.
Claim 1 recites the terms “CONNECT services” and “PLUS services.” Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “CONNECT services” and “PLUS services” in claim 1 do not have an ordinary and customary meaning to those in the art and the specification do not provide a meaning for the terms. In particular, the specification describes “CONNECT services” and “PLUS services” as user defined group of services but does not provide any clarification how to determine metes and bounds of the services. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 12 recite capitalized phrases, which renders the claim indefinite because they are unclear (i) whether the phrases are used as marks or not, or (ii) whether they are a beginning of new sentence. See MPEP 608.01(v)(II)1. For example, the phrases include “CONNECT” and “PLUS” in claim 1, “eMental Health Literacy Education, Training, and Accreditation” in claim 2, “CPD services” in claim 3, “Online access” and “Virtual Reality” in claim 9, and “Virtual Hospital-Community Mental Health Care” in claim 12.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “for training, instant online support, and CPD services,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase is modifying. In other words, it is unclear whether the phrase modifies “coach help-providers” only or further modifies other nouns such as “clinician,” “mentor,” or etc.
The term “innovative true” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “innovative” or “true” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “more” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the phrase “herein,” which is vague and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase refers to.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitation “medical device” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the specification merely states 3 instances of the term without providing any specific structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) recite(s):
A system comprising
a security system,
one or more servers, and
a platform for
providing a plurality of digital mental health services to a user device, wherein the plurality of digital mental health services comprising comprises one or more of eLEARNING service, CONNECT services, and PLUS other additional services that working together function as a 'virtual mental health system infrastructure.'
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “security system,” “server,” “platform,” “digital,” and “virtual,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a medical practitioner providing mental health services to patients.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “security system,” “server,” “platform,” “digital,” and “virtual”.
The “security system,” “server,” and “platform” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The “digital” and “virtual” in the aforementioned steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally linking the use of the aforementioned concept to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) “avatar” in claim 4, “AI engine” in claims 8 and 10, “online,” “artificial intelligence,” “Virtual Reality,” and “neurostimulation therapies” in claim 8, “processor,” “interface,” “network device,” “virtual reality environment,” and “medical device” in claim 10, “telecommunication” in claim 11, and “online virtual healthcare system infrastructure” in claim 12 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations, which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity, or that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. The additional element of using “processor,” “interface,” “network device,” and “medical device” to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the additional element of “online,” “artificial intelligence,” “Virtual Reality,” “neurostimulation therapies,” “virtual reality environment,” “telecommunication,” and “online virtual healthcare system infrastructure” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity or well-known, routine, and conventional activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the aforementioned step(s) was/were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the specification does not provide any indication that the additional element(s) is/are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), and the Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., and Ameranth, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(g) indicate that displaying data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the aforementioned additional elements are well-known, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned step(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MindSkiller, Web Archive, Web. 19 January 2020. ‹ https://web.archive.org/web/20200119153554/http://www.ep.org.au/GG/Mindskiller/Mindskiller.html
›.
Regarding claim 1, MindSkiller discloses a system comprising a security system, one or more servers, and a platform for providing a plurality of digital mental health services to a user device (p. 1: “This is a unique web-based program using explanatory visual models”), wherein the plurality of digital mental health services comprises one or more of eLEARNING service, CONNECT services, and PLUS other additional services that working together function as a 'virtual mental health system infrastructure' (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; ).
Regarding claim 2, MindSkiller further discloses that the plurality of digital mental health services comprise eMental Health Literacy Education, Training, and Accreditation (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; ).
Regarding claim 3, MindSkiller further discloses that the eLEARNING service is adapted to provide all user types in one product (p. 1 explains the integration of all user types in one tool: “This is a unique web-based program using explanatory visual models -- removing jargon by introducing a unique &engaging pictorial design at the heart of this psycho-educational & skills development tool.”), including self-help, help-seeking and peer support mentor consumers; mentor, clinician and coach help-providers for training, instant online support, and CPD services (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; ).
Regarding claim 4, MindSkiller further discloses that the eLEARNING service incorporates autonomous learning principles with an innovative true visual learning approach with visual analogies, role play with conversing characters and avatars enabling a minimization of the use of technical words and jargon (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development... This is a unique web-based program using explanatory visual models -- removing jargon by introducing a unique &engaging pictorial design at the heart of this psycho-educational & skills development tool.”; ).
Regarding claim 5, MindSkiller further discloses that the eLEARNING service incorporates continuous user interactivity, personalizing opportunities and embedded quizzes to ameliorate training pressure (p. 1: “Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist.”).
Regarding claim 6, MindSkiller further discloses that the eLEARNING service incorporates novel psychiatry-grade 'explanatory categorizations' and a syllabus to complement and enhance recognized existing descriptive classifications (pp. 4-6 teach categorizations as well as the syllabus for the categorizations).
Regarding claim 7, MindSkiller further discloses that the eLEARNING service is adapted to supplement, complement and make more efficient and safe existing in-person general practitioner, specialist and allied health mental health care (p. 1: “clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one careby a mental health clinician or general practitioner)”).
Regarding claim 9, MindSkiller further discloses that the plurality of digital mental health services is adapted to provide Online access for supplementary and complementary services to existing primary and specialist healthcare that provide access to cutting edge interventions and technological developments, such as artificial intelligence, Virtual Reality, neurostimulation therapies (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; ).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MindSkiller in view of Neumann (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0343407).
Regarding claim 8, MindSkiller further discloses processing user feedback from the eLEARNING service and adjust an eLEARNING program based on the user feedback (p. 11: “a personalised, 24/7 multi-platform resource for desktops, smartphones and tablets enhancing accessibility to, and regularity of, treatment;”).
MindSkiller does not explicitly disclose an Al engine for the processing and the adjusting based on aggregated data of other users.
Neumann teaches methods and systems for dynamic constitutional guidance using artificial intelligence for mental health (Abstract) comprising an Al engine for processing and adjusting guidance based on the user data as well as aggregated data of other users (¶15: “At a high level, aspects of the present disclosure are directed to systems and methods for dynamic conditional guidance using artificial intelligence. In an embodiment, a biological extraction is utilized to generate a diagnostic output. A physiological classifier utilizes the diagnostic output and a first classification algorithm to output a physiological state. A vector is generated in n-dimensional space using a clustering algorithm to identify recommendations for a user, based on user inputs.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in MindSkiller by adding the AI features as taught in Neumann in order to “Identify[] recommendations that are individualized and aimed at optimizing one's physiological state” (¶2 of Neumann).
Regarding claim 10, MindSkiller further discloses that the user device comprises a processor, a human user interface, a machine-to-machine interface and a network device, herein the human user interface is adapted to deliver a product generated by an Al engine, the human user interface is adapted to deliver a virtual reality environment, and the machine-to-machine interface is adapted to connect to a medical device to deliver neurostimulation therapies (p. 11: “An electronic delivery method with a graphical user interface to resonate with a computer-literate Generation Y’s and to lay down the foundations for a personalised, 24/7 multi-platform resource for desktops, smartphones and tablets enhancing accessibility to, and regularity of, treatment”; see also p. 1: “Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help.”).
MindSkiller does not explicitly disclose that the product is generated by an Al engine.
Neumann teaches methods and systems for dynamic constitutional guidance using artificial intelligence for mental health (Abstract) comprising the mental health guidance is generated by an Al engine (¶15: “At a high level, aspects of the present disclosure are directed to systems and methods for dynamic conditional guidance using artificial intelligence. In an embodiment, a biological extraction is utilized to generate a diagnostic output. A physiological classifier utilizes the diagnostic output and a first classification algorithm to output a physiological state. A vector is generated in n-dimensional space using a clustering algorithm to identify recommendations for a user, based on user inputs.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the invention in MindSkiller by adding the AI features as taught in Neumann in order to “Identify[] recommendations that are individualized and aimed at optimizing one's physiological state” (¶2 of Neumann).
Regarding claim 11, MindSkiller further discloses that the network device is adapted to connect to the plurality of digital mental health services where telecommunication health consultations services can be delivered (p. 11: “An electronic delivery method with a graphical user interface to resonate with a computer-literate Generation Y’s and to lay down the foundations for a personalised, 24/7 multi-platform resource for desktops, smartphones and tablets enhancing accessibility to, and regularity of, treatment”; see also p. 1: “Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help.”).
Regarding claim 12, MindSkiller further discloses that the virtual reality environment comprises a Virtual Hospital-Community Mental Health Care environment with a specialized psychiatric online virtual healthcare system infrastructure (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; ).
Regarding claim 13, MindSkiller further discloses that the specialized psychiatric online virtual healthcare system infrastructure is adapted to provide clinical care pathways that are supplementary and complementary to existing in-person care, incorporating multi-modal, trans- diagnostic, multi-user type services, and has hospital-grade healthcare standards, regulations and accreditation processes to maintain quality control for all users (p. 1: “Innovative online education & training program developed by Dr Gary Galambos to aide Recovery from mental disorders through clinician-aide model of care (facilitate mental health treatment being provided in one-to-one care by a mental health clinician or general practitioner) or Avatar-guided model of care as well as increasing Resilience & sustaining Peak Performance. Telehealth Psychiatric Assessment & Diagnosis & Online Therapist help also in development..”; see also pp. 7-8 for pathway modules).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J HONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0993. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
THOMAS J. HONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/THOMAS J HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 MPEP 608.01(v)(II) states “Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks.”