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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-21, and 24-30 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 03/02/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 remain canceled and not considered at this time.
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, 4-11, 14-21, and 24-30 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 4-10 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 11 and 14-20 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture as a computer-readable medium. Claims 21 and 24-30 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1, 11, and 21, the limitations of monitoring an audio visual conversation between a professional and a third party, detecting at least one indicator of depression by processing a portion of the conversation to identify an indicator of depression by processing at least a portion of the conversation to identify one or more depression-indicative conversational structures and depression-indicative trigger words, and in response to detecting at least one indicator of depression, implementing a remedial task which includes modifying the conversation by providing guidance to redirect the conversation into a desired area by providing a private guidance message to the professional and intervening in the AV conversation by notifying management, parsing the remedial task into a plurality of subtasks, and effectuating a subtask, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors and interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The steps of monitoring a conversation, processing conversation to identify an indicator of depression from the conversation, implementing a remedial task including providing guidance to redirect conversation, parsing the remedial task into subtasks, and effectuating a subtask are concepts which are performed by a person and through interactions between people. The specification describes effectuating the at least one subtask to include notifying management, notifying emergency services, notifying law enforcement, modifying the conversation, and intervening in the conversation ([0008], [0010]), contacting the supervisor, providing a private guidance message to a user ([0044], [0054]), and identifying an outstanding balance, incrementing a balance by a copay amount, generating an invoice ([00123], [00137]). Each of these possible subtasks are all directed to the abstract idea and therefore, effectuating the subtasks, under BRI. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the management of personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, claims 11 and 21 recite the additional elements – a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium executed by a processor and a computing system including a processor and memory. The computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium and the computing system including processor and memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims also recite using a virtual assistant to perform elements of the abstract idea. The virtual assistant is recited at a high-level of generality and the specification discloses a virtual assistant to be a known computer component such as Apple’s Siri or Amazon’s Alexa (Specification [0003]) or a generic virtual assistant ([00112]). The claims also recite a local user interface accessed by the professional for performing elements of the abstract idea including providing private guidance messages within the AV conversation. The claims recite applying the step of effectuating a subtask by use of a medical management system by remote manipulation of the local user interface which is also recited as being accessed by the professional. This describes the use of the local user interface to execute the step of effectuating a subtask, which is described above as being part of the abstract idea. The medical management system is recited at a high-level of generality without specific components describes, the local user interface is recited at a high level of generality and is described as a user interface normally used by the medical specialist (Specification, [00126]). The user interface is not specifically described, but is shown as a display screen in Fig. 1 which is a general purpose computing component. The use of a general purpose computing component to execute the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claims recite an AV connection with the management resource which is established for applying the abstract idea. As per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), the use of computer components in their ordinary capacity for tasks such as receiving, storing, transmitting data amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The computing device establishing a connection with a management resource amounts to transmitting data, which is therefore mere instructions to apply the exception. The claims include commandeering the local user interface to apply the abstract idea, here effectuating a subtask, on the medical management system for the intended purpose of automated manipulation of the interface. This element describes the use of a local user interface to apply the abstract idea. The claims also recite the use of natural language processing to identify depression-indicative conversational structures which is part of the abstract idea. The specification describes natural language processing as known in the art (Specification [0038]). The use of a known algorithm for executing the abstract idea is found to be mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEPE 2106.05(f)(2). The claims recite rendering the remote manipulation on the local user interface for visual inspection by the professional. The claims and specification do not specify what the remote manipulation would include, as it is an action which is the result of effectuating the subtask. Therefore, rendering the result of the abstract idea on the local user interface amounts to merely data outputting. Effectuating the subtask is described in the specification as a notification, a modification of the conversation, a message, or information with regard to payment/invoice. Rendering this information on the local user interface for the purpose of inspection by the professional amounts to data outputting. As per MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting such as presenting offers have been found by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims 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. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a computing system comprising a processor and memory to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The claims also recite using a virtual assistant to perform elements of the abstract idea, a local user interface accessed by the professional, a medical management system, an AV connection with the management resource, and using natural language processing to execute elements of the abstract idea. As described above, these are found to be mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include rendering the remote manipulation on the local user interface for visual inspection by the professional which is insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to data gathering and outputting. The rendering of information which results from the effectuating the subtask is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it is a step which executes both receiving or transmitting data over a network (to render data from a remote location) and presenting offers and gathering statistics. These computer functions have been found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). 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 the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 4-10, 14-20, and 24-30 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 4, 7-8, 10, 14, 17-18, 20, 24, 27-28, and 30 further specify or limit the limitations of the independent claims and therefore is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 5, 15, and 25 include identifying an indicator of depression by identifying vocal tones/inflections which is a managing behavior of a person and interactions between people. Although the claim also includes the use of natural language processing, this step is not required as it is one of several options to identify an indicator of depression. Claims 6, 16, and 26 include processing the conversation with use of a cloud-based computing resource to carry out the abstract idea of identifying an indicator of depression. The cloud-based computing resource is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception because using general purpose computing components to carry out steps of the abstract idea is mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As per Claims 9, 19, and 29 include implementing a remedial task includes effectuating the plurality of subtasks which is organizing personal behaviors or managing interactions between people and is therefore directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as the independent claims. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101”, filed 03/02/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4-11, 14-21, and 24-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present claims recite a practical application of the abstract idea because they allow for automated response to indicators of depression by modifying conversation using the virtual assistant in the form of effectuating a subtask on a medical management system by remote manipulation of the local user interface, where remote manipulation includes commandeering the local user interface used by the medical professional to automatically perform the at least one subtask. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “remote manipulation” but this is not described in technical terms that would describe more than transmitting data over a network to send information to a computer from a remote location, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The local user interface is receiving data for the purpose of applying the abstract idea, effectuating the at least one subtask. As described in the rejection above, the step of effectuating the subtask is described in the specification as a notification, message, or generating information regarding payment/invoice. Under BRI, commandeering the local user interface to effectuate the at least one subtask on a medical management system is equivalent to sending instructions or information from a remote location to display on a local user interface the result of the subtask. This is using the local user interface to apply the abstract idea which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. There are no technical steps which detail how the commandeering function occurs or how the local user interface is improved beyond merely it’s ordinary purpose of displaying information. The step of rendering the remote manipulation on the local user interface for visual inspection describes displaying data which is transmitted from the remote location and represents the output of the abstract idea, i.e. effectuating the subtask. The additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682