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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of June 16, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on September 11, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 14, and 18.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-4 and 6-21 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
While this rejection is withdrawn in view of the Amendment, subject-matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 will again be addressed based on the subsequent response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 18 has been amended to recite that the processor-based artificial intelligence system includes "at least one probabilistic transformer that projects the obtained biomarker data to a latent space and generates state space representations modeling mental distress and social rhythm disruption as an underlying latent dyadic process" and that each of the mental distress and social rhythm signal learning models receive as input "at least a portion of the state space representations associated with" the obtained biomarker data and then generate/output patient/caregiver mental distress and social rhythm (disruption) signals.
Applicant makes reference to [0026] and [0037] of the present specification in relation to the newly added limitations.
Initially, [0026] discloses that the probabilistic model projects "input vectors" to a latent space rather than "the obtained biomarker data" as recited in the claims.
Furthermore, neither [0026], [0037], nor any other portion of the specification discloses that the mental distress and social rhythm signal learning models receive as input "at least a portion of the state space representations associated with" the obtained biomarker data as generated by the "probabilistic transformer."
The remaining claims are rejected for depending from one of the above rejected claims.
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 1-4 and 6-21 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.
Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 18 calls for, inter alia, obtaining dyad-based biomarker data, determining "data-based representations" of mental distress and social rhythm disruption among one of the dyads, and predicting mental distress and social rhythm disruption among the dyad by processing the input biomarker data in conjunction with the data-based representations.
Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 14, and 18 has been amended to recite that the processor-based artificial intelligence system includes "at least one probabilistic transformer that projects the obtained biomarker data to a latent space and generates state space representations modeling mental distress and social rhythm disruption as an underlying latent dyadic process" (emphasis added) and that each of the mental distress and social rhythm signal learning models receive as input "at least a portion of the state space representations associated with" the obtained biomarker data and then generate/output patient/caregiver mental distress and social rhythm (disruption) signals.
However, it is unclear whether and/or how the "data-based representations" are ever actually used by the probabilistic transformer to project into the latent space and generate the state space representations because the claims merely call for the "obtained biomarker data" to be projected into the latent space.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the recited "probabilistic transformer" is separate from or is defining each of the recited "mental distress signal learning model" and "social rhythm signal learning model." Specifically, [0026] of the present specification discusses "using representation learning techniques to extract mental distress signals and social rhythm disruption signals" (emphasis added) among dyads whereby "at least one probabilistic transformer can be implemented to model mental distress and social rhythm disruption as an underlying dyadic process that generates observed changes over time." However, [0029]-[0033] and Figure 1 of the present specification then disclose/illustrate that the "mental distress signal learning model" and "social rhythm signal learning model" generate the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals.
Still further, it is unclear whether or how the processing of the input biomarker data using the multivariate time series modeling techniques with one or more probabilistic transformers in connection with the portion of the data-based representations in claims 3, 16, and 20 relates to the aforementioned use of the probabilistic transformer to project the obtained biomarker data to the latent space and generate the state space representations in independent claims 1, 14, and 18.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending from one of the above rejected claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
