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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 December 2025 has been entered.
This Continued Examination Office Action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 31 December 2025.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 21 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection for Claims 1, 4-21, Applicants argue that: (1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and even if they were, they would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Commensurate with the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG), the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) and updated with the addition of new Examples 47-49 published July 2024, the claims are continued analyzed based on these new guidelines and is detailed below in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 101.
In the remarks regarding the previous prior art rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1), this rejection is moot for now Claims 1, 4-21 due to change in claim scope as now Claims 1, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Kadam et al. (Kadam) (US 2023/0037749). It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. The Examiner has a duty and responsibility to the public and to Applicant to interpret the claims as broadly as reasonably possible during prosecution. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1 393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
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, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process for representative Claim 1:
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-21 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “method; computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums; system” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1, 3-21 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps for:
“receiving, by a processor and from a task management service, one or more tasks to be performed by a user;
computing, by the processor, a task score for each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user, by:
computing a task familiarity score for one or more tasks completed by the user;
computing a task difficulty score for one or more tasks completed by the user, wherein computing the task familiarity score includes generating and using a term frequency-inverse document frequency matrix representing words in a task description;
determining, by the processor, a mood status associated with the user, wherein determining the mood status includes processing one or more physiological signals received from a user worn device;
comparing, by the processor, the mood status to the task score for each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user, wherein the mood status is one of a predetermined plurality of mood statuses;
determining, by the processor and based on the comparison, a recommended task from among each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user; and
sending, by the processor, the recommended task to the task management service for display to the user;
determining, by the processor and based on the comparison, a recommended task from among each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user;
wherein computing the task score includes computing a task familiarity score for one or more tasks completed by the user and computing a task difficulty score for the one or more tasks completed by the user; and
wherein the task familiarity score is based at least in part on a term frequency-inverse document frequency matrix representing words in a given task description”
Analysis (Prong 1 - Directed To): The claim focuses on "computing, determining; comparing and sending information to recommend a task”. The core of the invention is the cognitive or mental process of basically matching a task to a user based on calculated metrics (familiarity, difficulty, mood) rather than a specific, technical improvement to the way [the] computer (processor) operates, such as improved memory access, power consumption, or processor speed. The use of the "processor" and "user worn device" constitutes standard computer technology and does not transform the abstract idea into a concrete application (see also below continued analysis under Step 2A: Prong 2).
The claims as a whole recite certain groupings under the categories:
(a) Mathematical concepts – [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations] (e.g., computing scores, TF-IDF matrix generation).
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – [managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)] (e.g., matching a task to a user's mood, organizing workflows. The concept of matching tasks to users based on, inter alia, emotional states and previous task difficulty, which is a method of organizing human activity (see also, mental process/business method).
(c) Mental processes – [concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion]. The core of the invention is the cognitive or mental process of matching a task to a user based on calculated metrics (familiarity, difficulty, mood). While using a "worn device" adds a hardware element, analyzing this data to determine a "mood" to make a decision is arguably a mental step or a mental process of diagnosing a state, rather than a technical transformation. (see also analysis under Step 2A: Prong 2)
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) II C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 4-21: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims contain computer components (“a processor operatively coupled to the storage; computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums; user worn device”, etc.) (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 2-5, 19-29) that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims”). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process). Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1, 4-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “a processor operatively coupled to the storage; computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums; user worn device”) etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 2-5, 19-29) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “system 200” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Kadam et al. (Kadam) (US 2023/0037749).
With regard to Claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 17, 21, Hunt teaches a task management (real-time clinical evaluation system provides a mechanism to create a "Best Fit" that allows physicians to optimize the efficacy of medication for individual patients. The phrase "Best Fit" refers to a treatment protocol that works in the best way, at the best time, to optimally help a patient perform the specific tasks most relevant to that patient) method/computer program product/system including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums having instructions encoded thereon that when executed by at least one processor cause a process to be carried out a storage; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the storage, the at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in the storage that when executed cause the at least one processor (computer; device; programmable machine; mobile device; The term "database" refers to a machine and specific data structure for collecting, structuring and organizing and analyzing data in electronic format and the data collected from a digital device that is so structured and organized) (see at least paragraphs 7, 32-38) comprising:
receiving, by a processor and from a task management service ((real-time clinical evaluation system; The present invention contemplates relevant applications or "APPs", for example in a Mac or PC format, that run on a mobile computer device via typing, a touchscreen or touch pad via stylus or manual touch; Applicant's real-time clinical evaluation system provides a mechanism to create a "Best Fit" that allows physicians to optimize the efficacy of medication for individual patients. The phrase "Best Fit" refers to a treatment protocol that works in the best way, at the best time, to optimally help a patient perform the specific tasks most relevant to that patient; real-time clinical evaluation system 100), one or more tasks (Stimulant medications have distinct differences that affect their impact on the performance of different types of tasks (as measured by task complexity, variety, and degree of shifting (multitasking)) which can be measured at specific times during the day. The system described herein easily and efficiently allows a patient to enter a description of what task they are doing at a specific time--and how much attention is required to perform these tasks at that moment. Applicant's system can link the cognitive demands of the patient's tasks to the clinical characteristics of specific medications to enhance the "Best Fit" of treatment in relation to task. In addition, regarding psychostimulant medications, Applicant's system can account for clinically significant differences in chemical composition, mechanism of action, duration of effect, and impact on thinking and task performance) to be performed by a user (allows a patient to enter a description of what task they are doing at a specific time--and how much attention is required to perform these tasks at that moment; facilitates interaction between a user and a computing device; User 105 may be a patient, parent/guardian of the patient, teacher, parent tutor, mentor, coach or other interested party associated with the patient) (see at least paragraphs 6-11, 32-38, 61);
computing, by the processor, a task score for each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user (patient; Specifications of mobile device 110 and central computer 130 will be described in detail later in this application. Having described certain components of various embodiments of a real-time clinical evaluation system 100 of the present invention, additional details of the various methods performed by real-time clinical evaluation system 100 are now provided. Patients will be able to score their performance and medication effectiveness as evident and recalled over the past week and perhaps past month. However, they will also score an abbreviated index of medication effectiveness in real time on a hourly or every other hour basis. The larger time-frame provides an overall index of medication effectiveness and tolerability. The hourly scoring provides a sensitive measure of the duration of medication effect and the specificity of that effect to the type of actual task being performed. Both forms of information are relevant, but the hourly measures are most unique metabolically and are task-specific) (see at least paragraphs 6-11, 61);
wherein computing the task score includes computing a task familiarity score (The term "database" refers to a machine and specific data structure for collecting, structuring and organizing and analyzing data in electronic format and the data collected from a digital device that is so structured and organized. In certain embodiments, this structure accounts for each of the major variables defined above, such as: medication type, dose and time of administration, personality characteristics, task descriptions, characteristics, complexity and familiarity, as well as the patients familiarity and interest in the task, environmental characteristics such as external distractions and interruptions, and internal motivational and reward factors) for one or more tasks completed by the user (FIGS. 41-43 illustrate diagrams showing the effectiveness of 50 mg of the medication Vyvanse over a period of time based on information collected using a clinical evaluation system according to an exemplary embodiment. FIG. 41 illustrates the effectiveness of the Vyvanse over time with respect to five separate factors: task complexity, task familiarity, task interest, whether the patient feels the presence of the medication, and the effect the medication has on the performance of the tasks. FIG. 42 provides a summary score over the period of time based on the various observed factors. FIG. 43 illustrates the same data curves as shown in FIG. 41 regarding whether the patient feels the presence of the medication and the effect the medication has on the performance of the tasks, and those two particular curves are separated from the other information provide in FIG. 41) and computing a task difficulty (The term "learning disability" refers to a disorder found in children of normal intelligence who have difficulties in learning specific skills) score for the one or more tasks (Task.times.Medication.times.Personality factors and effects, for example, can be empirically tested and validated using the real-time clinical evaluation system. In certain embodiments, such factors comprise essential variables in determining medication selection. Differences in duration of medication within clinical subtype can also be considered. Introducing the concept of a Personality.times.Medication connection greatly contributes to Best Fit. Cloninger has developed a questionnaire (the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire) that helps define these personality characteristic using 98 True/False self-scored items that generates 12 subscales of typology. In certain embodiments, the real-time clinical evaluation system 100 implements the questionnaire during the evaluation process) completed by the user (patient) (see at least paragraphs 27, 35-47, 65-69, 86, 103-110, 159-162),
wherein computing the task familiarity score includes generating and using a term frequency-inverse document frequency matrix (algorithm) representing words in a given task description (as shown in FIG. 5B, an algorithm for determining a qualitative "Best Fit" value is: Best Fit=(Diagnosis)W.times.(Medication(Type,Dose,Time))W.times.(Task-Ob- jective)W.times.(Task-Subjective)W.times.(Personality)W.times.(Environment- )W.; Each variable may be weighted by a value W based on various predetermined settings of the real-time clinical evaluation system 100; In certain embodiments, factors relevant to "best fit" include diagnoses, relevant impact of each diagnosis on functioning, nature of actual tasks performed, medication (e.g., type, dose, time), patient ability to metabolize medication (pharmacokinetics), patient receptor sensitivity to given blood levels of medication (pharmacodynamics), timing of tasks in relation to medication, the setting (environment in terms of distractions, reward and reinforcement), personality factors, including sensitivity to internal versus external rewards, and other factors) (see at least paragraphs 27, 35-47, 69, 89-93, 103-110, 159-162);
determining, by the processor, a mood status associated with the user (Patients; An "anxiety disorder" refers to a mental disorder in which severe anxiety is a salient symptom. A mood disorder refers to a disorder in which a disturbance in a person's mood is a salient symptom. A thought disorder refers to a pattern of disordered language use that is presumed to reflect disordered thinking and may be considered a symptom of psychotic mental illness. Substance abuse refers to the overindulgence in and dependence upon a drug or other chemical leading to effects that are detrimental to the individual's physical and mental health, or the welfare of others. Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) refers to an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry, by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety, or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions. Depression refers to mental state characterized by a pessimistic sense of inadequacy and a despondent lack of activity. Bipolar refers to a mental illness characterized by two opposite and extreme types of moods: episodes of mania (hyperactivity, excessive cheerfulness and excitement, decreased need of sleep, flight of ideas, etc.) and depression (marked by poor appetite and poor self-esteem, sleep disturbances (e.g., insomnia or oversleeping), hopelessness, loss of energy, suicidal ideas, etc.). Asperger refers to a disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests (see at least paragraphs 46, 61, 162-164);
comparing, by the processor, the mood status (there is a reciprocal interaction between baseline personality traits and medication effects. The real-time clinical evaluation system 100 recognizes that a patient's fundamental personality may impact the effects of medication and reciprocally, that medications impact attitudes and behaviors that previously were considered intrinsic and fixed) to the task score for each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user (Such an APP can also encompass multiple concurrent diagnoses, personality factors and neurobiological measures. In certain embodiments, it samples for indices or characteristics of the environment in which the patient is performing these tasks, including distractions and reinforcements or rewards. It invites patients to score the complexity of the tasks they are performing and their familiarity, interest and need for learning of the tasks. It scores for other factors that may be affecting their attention--mood, alertness and task performance--beyond medication) (see at least paragraphs 46, 61, 110, 162-164);
determining, by the processor and based on the comparison, a recommended task from among each of the one or more tasks to be performed by the user (The information obtained by the system is designed through built-in analytical methods to generate an index of the effectiveness of the medication, the duration of this effect, the need for additional doses to maximize or sustain effect, or the probability that a change of medication would be more likely to be more effective or to sustain efficacy longer. This integration and recommendation incorporates measures of the type of tasks the patient performs, their relative pattern of attentional demand (wide, or narrow, flexible or sustained, detailed or conceptual) as relevant factors in selection of medication, dose, and timing. Although this process currently is based on clinical experience, it will become self-informing and continuously improving. The system is anticipated to be used by hundreds and eventually thousands of patients, constituting a vast database for continuous refinement of implications and recommendations; information concerning a patient on medication is collected. In one embodiment, because the information is collected via a mobile device 110, the information can be collected in real-time. That is, the patient can enter information as he experiences various conditions instead of having to rely on memory. This real-time information can be analyzed to determine the effects of the medication. Further, the real-time information can be used to analyze the patient's response to the medication. This analysis can then be used to modify and/or confirm the use of the medication and that recommendation can be shared with the patient) (see at least paragraphs 14, 38, 79);
sending, by the processor, the recommended task to the task management service for display to the user (information concerning a patient on medication is collected. In one embodiment, because the information is collected via a mobile device 110, the information can be collected in real-time. That is, the patient can enter information as he experiences various conditions instead of having to rely on memory. This real-time information can be analyzed to determine the effects of the medication. Further, the real-time information can be used to analyze the patient's response to the medication. This analysis can then be used to modify and/or confirm the use of the medication and that recommendation can be shared with the patient) (see at least paragraphs 14, 38, 79, 141-143);
Hunt does not specifically teach wherein determining the mood status includes processing one or more physiological signals received from a user worn device. Kadam teaches wherein determining the mood status (for determining a mood of a user for diagnosis and treatment of mental diseases and conditions, is illustrated. The system 100 includes a mood score module 102, a control system 110, a memory device 114, an electronic interface 119, one or more sensors 130, and one or more user devices 170. As described in more detail herein, the user device 170 also includes a display device 172. In some implementations, the user device 170 includes physical interface(s) to the one or more sensors 130) includes processing one or more physiological signals received from a user worn device (The PPG sensor 154 outputs physiological data associated with the user 210 (e.g., FIGS. 2 to 4) that can be used to determine one or more user parameters 104, such as, for example, a heart rate, a heart rate variability, a cardiac cycle, respiration rate, an inspiration amplitude, an expiration amplitude, an inspiration-expiration ratio, estimated blood pressure parameter(s), or any combination thereof. The PPG sensor 154 can be worn by the user 210, such as implemented as part of user device 170 or another wearable device, or embedded in clothing and/or fabric that is worn by the user 210) in analogous art of mood and mental health for the purposes of: “a system for diagnosing a user based on a mood score includes one or more sensors, a memory, and a control system. The one or more sensors are configured to generate a plurality of parameters associated with the user. The memory stores machine-readable instructions. The control system includes one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to receive a first value for each of the plurality of parameters; determining a mood score; mood change” (see at least paragraphs 8, 26, 59-58, 73).
With regard to Claims 9, 16, Hunt teaches wherein computing the task score includes computing a task familiarity score for one or more tasks completed by the user and computing a task difficulty score for the one or more tasks completed by the user (see at least paragraphs 27, 86, 103-110, 35-47, 65-69, 159-162).
With regard to Claims 3, 10, 17, Hunt teaches wherein the task familiarity score is based at least in part on a term frequency-inverse document frequency matrix representing words in a given task description (see at least paragraphs 63, 118).
With regard to Claims 4, 11, 18, Hunt teaches wherein the task difficulty score is based at least in part on a difference between an estimated effort to complete the one or more tasks completed by the user and an actual effort to complete the one or more tasks completed by the user (see at least paragraphs 86, 152).
With regard to Claims 5, 12, 19, Hunt teaches wherein determining the mood status includes receiving, from the task management service, a mood status manually selected by the user via a graphical user interface of the task management service (see at least paragraph 84).
With regard to Claims 7, 14, Hunt teaches wherein the health data includes a sleep duration of the user (see at least paragraphs 46, 117).
With regard to Claims 6, 13, 20, Hunt teaches wherein determining the mood status includes receiving, from a smart device, health data representing a physiological indication of the user and/or a physical activity of the user, (see at least paragraphs 33, 84, 130);
However Hunt does not specifically teach based on monitoring biometric signals of the user. Kadam teaches based on monitoring biometric signals of the user (the memory device 114 (FIG. 1) stores a user profile associated with the user, which can be implemented as user parameters 104 for determination of the mood score 102. The user profile can include, for example, demographic information associated with the user, biometric information associated with the user, medical information associated with the user, self-reported user feedback, sleep parameters associated with the user (e.g., sleep-related parameters recorded from one or more sleep sessions)) in analogous art of mood and mental health for the purposes of: “The demographic information can include, for example, information indicative of an age of the user, a gender of the user, a race of the user, a family history of mental health, an employment status of the user, an educational status of the user, a socioeconomic status of the user” (see at least paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the method and system for detecting mood as taught by Kadam in the system of Hunt, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
D’Auria et al. (US 2022/0351236)
Zheng et al. (CN 110062272B)
Miklowitz, David J., et al. "Facilitated integrated mood management for adults with bipolar disorder." Bipolar Disorders 14.2 (2012): 185-197.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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 L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624