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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 ("RCE"), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 were previously pending and subject to a Final Office Action having a notification date of March 11, 2026 (“Final Office Action”). Following the Final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on May 11, 2026 (“Amendment”), amending claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21. The Amendment resulted in an Advisory Action dated May 15, 2026, indicating non-entry of the Amendment. Applicant then filed the RCE on June 2, 2026, requesting entry of the Amendment.
The present non-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
Starting on page 12 of the Amendment, Applicant initially asserts that a person could not practically perform the steps of the amended independent claims, as no person could configure or implement the specific processor-based artificial intelligence system architecture required by the amended limitations. The Examiner disagrees that the present claims do not recite "mental processes."
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). MPEP 2106.05(III).
Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). MPEP 2106.05(III)(A).
However, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). MPEP 2106.05(III)(C).
In the present case, the independent claims recite a mental process because a person could practically in their mind with pen and paper initially determine "data-based representations" (e.g., feature vectors) of mental distress/social rhythm disruption based on biomarkers (e.g., imaging data, physiological measurements, etc.) of a patient/caregiver dyad. For instance, the person could review imaging data of the dyad, determine a value representative of relaxation of the patient and caregiver every 10 seconds, and incorporate such values into a feature vector for "relaxation." Thereafter, the person could analyze the biomarker data in connection with various data-based representations representative of the dyad to determine patient and caregiver mental distress and social rhythm disruption "signals" (e.g., indications regarding anxiety, degree to which the patient and caregiver are efficiently communicating, etc.), determine a "composite" signal (e.g., an average of the patient/caregiver signals), and perform actions to reduce a predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption in the patient/caregiver dyad (e.g., determining a recommended course of action to address the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption). These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Applicant next asserts that the recited parallel-model architecture, feeding in series to a composite signal generator, is a particular structural arrangement of artificial intelligence components that addresses a specific technical problem: conventional mental health assessment systems consider only limited and/or single-subject data and cannot model the interdependence of mental distress and social rhythm disruption between patients and their caregivers. (See, e.g., page 1, paragraph [0002] of the specification). The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the input of biomarker data and output of the patient/caregiver distress signals occurring "in parallel" with the input of biomarker data and output of the patient/caregiver social rhythm disruption signals, the Examiner notes that a person can practically in his/her mind perform such steps independently of each other (e.g., by considering the input biomarker data in relation to mental distress and then separately considering the input biomarker data in relation to social rhythm disruption independent of the mental distress determination). Regarding the generation of the composite signal being "in series" to the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs, the Examiner notes that a person can practically in his/her mind determine such composite signal "in series" (e.g., whereby the composite signal depends on the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs), such as by taking an average of or aggregating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs. In this regard, merely reciting how the recited parallel receipt of input biomarker data and generation of patient/caregiver mental distress/social rhythm disruption signals and in series generation of the composite signal are performed by a "mental distress signal learning model," "social rhythm disruption signal learning model," and "composite signal generator" does not recite any details beyond what a person could practically perform in his/her mind which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP §2106.05(a)(II). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem”). In this regard, while the generically recited learning models might expedite the mental process of determining the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals, they do not improve computers or technology. That is, an improvement in the way in which mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals/data are predicted/analyzed is not an improvement in technology. Furthermore, the claims do not even recite modeling the interdependence of mental distress and social rhythm disruption between patients and their caregivers in the first place as it appears Applicant is insinuating.
Applicant next asserts "the specific multi-component artificial intelligence system architecture is an improvement to how conventional systems operate in the dyadic mental health prediction context. Similarly, under McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims are eligible where they "use a combined order of specific rules" that achieve "a specific technological result" not previously performed by computers. The specific combination of parallel models and a downstream composite signal generation achieves a specific technological result (e.g., real-time prediction of latent dyadic mental states from multi-modal biomarker streams) not achievable by conventional systems." Again however, an improvement in the manner in which dyadic mental states are predicted from "multimodal" biomarker streams (not claimed; only generic "biomarker data" is claimed) is an improvement in the abstract idea of predicting/generating/outputting mental distress and social rhythm disruption in a patient/caregiver technology rather than in computers or technology. Furthermore, the generic recitation of the models and composite signal generator do not amount to a combined order of specific rules that achieve a specific technological result not previously performed by computers as per McRO.
At pages 12-13 of the Amendment, Applicant then asserts how the amended independent claims expressly require that the "composite signal" output of the processor-based artificial intelligence system be used to automatically generate "at least one control signal for controlling at least portions of one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems" in response to the predicted dyadic mental states which is not a mental process or abstract manipulation of data but the automated physical control of an external robotic system based on artificial intelligence output. While the Examiner agrees that using the composite signal to generate a control signal for controlling portions of an "one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems" in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption is not part of the abstract idea, the Examiner asserts that this limitations amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and doing no more than generally linking use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). For instance, the catalytic conversion of chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in Parker v. Flook was found to be a field of use limitation because it did not affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). In contrast, the additional limitations in Diamond v. Diehr (e.g., monitoring elapsed time since mold was closed, constantly measuring mold temperature, opening the prese automatically, etc.) were not found to be mere field of use limitations because they were integrated into the claim as a whole. 450 US at 179, 209 USPQ at 5. In the present case, the generic step of generating a control signal for controlling one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress and social rhythm disruption is just a token addition not integrated into the claim as a whole because it does not affect how the steps of generating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals are generated. Furthermore, generating a control signal to somehow generically control "one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems" in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption does not recite any details regarding how such external physical robot-mediated interaction systems control is actually performed.
Applicant then takes the position that the processor-based artificial intelligence system's prediction outputs in connection with the amended independent claims directly control robot-mediated physical interactions targeted at ameliorating predicted mental distress and social rhythm disruption, which represents a concrete treatment-directed application (particular treatment/prophylaxis), not an abstract one. The Examiner disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) specifically notes that the following factors are relevant when determining whether a claim applies or uses a recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition: (a) The Particularity Or Generality Of The Treatment Or Prophylaxis; (b) Whether The Limitation(s) Have More Than A Nominal Or Insignificant Relationship To The Exception(s); (c) Whether The Limitation(s) Are Merely Extra-Solution Activity Or A Field Of Use.
In relation to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a), the Examiner notes that a user/patient/etc. is not even treated in the present claims in the first place. Instead, the claims merely call for generating a control signal "for controlling…one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems…" (emphasis added) but do not actually control any such systems (e.g., similar to how MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a) discusses "administering a lower than normal dose of a beta blocker medication to a patient identified as having the poor metabolizer genotype." In relation to In relation to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(b), generating a control signal "for controlling…one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems" just appears to have a nominal/insignificant relationship to the exception (predicted patient/caregiver mental distress/social rhythm disruption states). Finally, in relation to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), the limitation amounts to doing no more than generally linking use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). For instance, the catalytic conversion of chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in Parker v. Flook was found to be a field of use limitation because it did not affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). In contrast, the additional limitations in Diamond v. Diehr (e.g., monitoring elapsed time since mold was closed, constantly measuring mold temperature, opening the prese automatically, etc.) were not found to be mere field of use limitations because they were integrated into the claim as a whole. 450 US at 179, 209 USPQ at 5. In the present case, the generic step of generating a control signal for controlling one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress and social rhythm disruption is just a token addition not integrated into the claim as a whole because it does not affect how the steps of generating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals are generated.
Finally, Applicant broadly takes the position that the present claims are similar to the anomaly detection recited in claim 3 of Example 47 of the USPTO Eligibility Examples. The Examiner disagrees. Example 47 explains that claim 3 was patent eligible because it included the "additional limitations" of dropping malicious packets in real-time and blocking future traffic from the source address which provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets as discussed in the background. In contrast, the recited external physical robot-mediated interaction systems are not even actually controlled in the first place - rather, a control signal "for controlling" such systems is merely generated. Even if the recited external physical robot-mediated interaction systems were actually controlled, such limitation is just a token addition not integrated into the claim as a whole. Still further, there is no indication that the recited external physical robot-mediated interaction systems themselves provide any specific technological improvement as they are mostly disclosed in the present specification in passing in a laundry list of other actions such as avatar mediated interactions, human mediated interactions, etc. (e.g., see [0004], [0033]-[0034], [0042] of the present specification).
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §103
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
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 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 14-17 are directed to a non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture), and claims 18-21 are directed to a system (i.e., an apparatus). Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-21 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 18 recites:
A system comprising:
a memory configured to store program instructions; and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions to:
obtain biomarker data derived from a set of multiple dyads, each dyad comprising at least one patient and at least one caregiver associated with the at least one patient;
determine, based at least in part on processing at least a portion of the obtained biomarker data, one or more data-based representations of mental distress among at least one of the multiple dyads and social rhythm disruption among at least one of the multiple dyads;
predict mental distress among a given one of the multiple dyads and social rhythm disruption among the given one of the multiple dyads by processing input biomarker data, derived from the given one of the multiple dyads, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more data-based representations, using a processor-based artificial intelligence system having an architectural arrangement comprising:
(i) a mental distress signal learning model and a social rhythm signal learning model connected in parallel, each of the mental distress signal learning model and the social rhythm signal learning model receiving as input the obtained biomarker data, the mental distress signal learning model generating at an output thereof a patient distress signal and a caregiver distress signal, and the social rhythm signal learning model generating at an output thereof a patient social rhythm signal and a caregiver social rhythm signal; and
(ii) a composite signal generator connected in series to the outputs of the mental distress signal learning model and the social rhythm signal learning model, the composite signal generator generating a composite signal from at least the patient distress signal, the caregiver distress signal, the patient social rhythm signal, and the caregiver social rhythm signal; and
perform one or more automated actions based at least in part on the predicting step, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically generating, based at least in part on the composite signal, at least one control signal for controlling at least portions of one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress among the given one of the multiple dyads and the predicted social rhythm disruption among the given one of the multiple dyads.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain
methods of organizing human activity” because they relate to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For instance, determining "data-based representations" of mental distress/social rhythm disruption based on biomarkers of a patient/caregiver dyad, analyzing the biomarker data in connection with the data-based representations representative of the dyad to determine patient and caregiver mental distress and social rhythm disruption "signals" (e.g., indications regarding anxiety, degree to which the patient and caregiver are efficiently communicating, etc.), determining a "composite" signal (e.g., an average of the patient/caregiver signals), and performing actions/interventions to reduce a predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption in the patient/caregiver dyad amount to following rules/instructions as part of managing relations between a patient and a caregiver. Furthermore, at least some of the aforementioned steps are similar to a mental process that a neurologist follows when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions, In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Furthermore, many of the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a person could practically in their mind with pen and paper initially determine "data-based representations" (e.g., feature vectors) of mental distress/social rhythm disruption based on biomarkers (e.g., imaging data, physiological measurements, etc.) of a patient/caregiver dyad. For instance, the person could review imaging data of the dyad, determine a value representative of relaxation of the patient and caregiver every 10 seconds, and incorporate such values into a feature vector for "relaxation." Thereafter, the person could analyze the biomarker data in connection with various data-based representations representative of the dyad to determine patient and caregiver mental distress and social rhythm disruption "signals" (e.g., indications regarding anxiety, degree to which the patient and caregiver are efficiently communicating, etc.), determine a "composite" signal (e.g., an average of the patient/caregiver signals), and perform actions/interventions to reduce a predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption in the patient/caregiver dyad (e.g., determining a recommended course of action to address the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption). These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding the input of biomarker data and output of the patient/caregiver distress signals occurring "in parallel" with the input of biomarker data and output of the patient/caregiver social rhythm disruption signals, the Examiner notes that a person can practically in his/her mind perform such steps independently of each other (e.g., by considering the input biomarker data in relation to mental distress and then separately considering the input biomarker data in relation to social rhythm disruption independent of the mental distress determination). Regarding the generation of the composite signal being "in series" to the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs, the Examiner notes that a person can practically in his/her mind determine such composite signal "in series" (e.g., whereby the composite signal depends on the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs), such as by taking an average of or aggregating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs.
Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 2, 15, and 19 recite how determining the one or more data-based representations includes performing phenotypic characterization which can be practically performed in the human mind ("mental processes") and relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
-Claim 6 recites how performing the actions includes initiating human-mediated interactions within at least a portion of the given dyad which relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
-Claim 7 recites how the predicting includes processing input biomarker data, derived from the given dyad, using one or more trajectory modeling techniques in connection with the at least a portion of the one or more data-based representations which can be practically performed in the human mind ("mental processes") and relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
-Claim 8 recites how the predicting includes predicting one or more temporal state transitions associated with at least one of mental distress among the given dyad and social rhythm disruption among the given dyad which can be practically performed in the human mind ("mental processes") and relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
-Claim 11 recites how obtaining the biomarker data includes obtaining it from an "isolation-related context" of each dyad which can be practically performed in the human mind ("mental processes") and relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
-Claim 12 recites how processing input biomarker data includes processing it from an "isolation-related context" of the given dyad which can be practically performed in the human mind ("mental processes") and relates to managing relations between people ("certain methods of organizing human activities").
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
a memory configured to store program instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory to execute the program instructions to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
obtain biomarker data derived from a set of multiple dyads, each dyad comprising at least one patient and at least one caregiver associated with the at least one patient;
determine, based at least in part on processing at least a portion of the obtained biomarker data, one or more data-based representations of mental distress among at least one of the multiple dyads and social rhythm disruption among at least one of the multiple dyads;
predict mental distress among a given one of the multiple dyads and social rhythm disruption among the given one of the multiple dyads by processing input biomarker data, derived from the given one of the multiple dyads, in connection with at least a portion of the one or more data-based representations, using a processor-based artificial intelligence system having an architectural arrangement comprising (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
(i) a mental distress signal learning model and a social rhythm signal learning model connected in parallel, each of the mental distress signal learning model and the social rhythm signal learning model (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) receiving as input the obtained biomarker data, the mental distress signal learning model generating at an output thereof a patient distress signal and a caregiver distress signal, and the social rhythm signal learning model generating at an output thereof a patient social rhythm signal and a caregiver social rhythm signal; and
(ii) a composite signal generator connected in series to the outputs of the mental distress signal learning model and the social rhythm signal learning model, the composite signal generator (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) generating a composite signal from at least the patient distress signal, the caregiver distress signal, the patient social rhythm signal, and the caregiver social rhythm signal; and
perform one or more automated (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) actions based at least in part on the predicting step, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically generating, based at least in part on the composite signal, at least one control signal for controlling at least portions of one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); mere field of use limitation, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress among the given one of the multiple dyads and the predicted social rhythm disruption among the given one of the multiple dyads.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including memory including instructions, processor configured to execute the instructions, and "automated" actions, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the prediction using "a processor-based artificial intelligence system" that includes "mental distress" and "social rhythm disruption" learning models connected in parallel and a "composite signal generator" connected in series to the outputs of the two models, the Examiner asserts that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). As already discussed previously, a person can practically in his/her mind consider the input biomarker data in relation to mental distress, separately considering the input biomarker data in relation to social rhythm disruption independent of the mental distress determination (i.e., performing such steps "in parallel"), and then determine a composite signal "in series" (e.g., whereby the composite signal depends on the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs), such as by taking an average of or aggregating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs (the patient and caregiver "signals"). In this regard, merely reciting how the recited parallel receipt of input biomarker data and generation of patient/caregiver mental distress/social rhythm disruption signals and in series generation of the composite signal are performed by a "mental distress signal learning model," "social rhythm disruption signal learning model," and "composite signal generator" does not recite any details beyond what a person could practically perform in his/her mind which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
Regarding the additional limitations of how performance of the one or more automated actions includes automatically generating, based at least in part on the composite signal, at least one control signal for controlling at least portions of one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with the abstract idea of responding to the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption, the Examiner asserts that this limitations amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and doing no more than generally linking use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). For instance, the catalytic conversion of chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in Parker v. Flook was found to be a field of use limitation because it did not affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). In contrast, the additional limitations in Diamond v. Diehr (e.g., monitoring elapsed time since mold was closed, constantly measuring mold temperature, opening the prese automatically, etc.) were not found to be mere field of use limitations because they were integrated into the claim as a whole. 450 US at 179, 209 USPQ at 5. In the present case, the generic step of generating a control signal for controlling one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress and social rhythm disruption is just a token addition not integrated into the claim as a whole because it does not affect how the steps of generating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals are generated. Furthermore, generating a control signal to somehow generically control "one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems" in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption does not recite any details regarding how such external physical robot-mediated interaction systems control is actually performed.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 18 and analogous independent claims 1 and 14 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 18 and analogous independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 2, 15, and 19 recite how the determination of the data-based representations uses one or more AI-based representation learning techniques which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
-Claims 3, 16, and 20 recite how the predicting uses one or more multivariate time series modeling techniques with one or more probabilistic transformers which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 4, 17, and 21 recite how performing one or more automated actions includes automatically initiating one or more avatar-mediated interactions within at least a portion of the given dyad which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 9 recites how performing one or more automated actions includes automatically training at least a portion of the one or more artificial intelligence techniques using feedback related to the predicting of at least one of mental distress among the given dyad and social rhythm disruption among the given dyad amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
-Claim 10 recites how performing one or more automated actions includes generating and outputting, using one or more user interfaces, one or more visualizations pertaining to the predicting of at least one of mental distress among the given dyad and social rhythm disruption among the given dyad which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 13 recites how software implementing the method is provided as a service in a cloud environment which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the system including memory including instructions, processor configured to execute the instructions, and "automated" actions, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the prediction using "a processor-based artificial intelligence system" that includes "mental distress" and "social rhythm disruption" learning models connected in parallel and a "composite signal generator" connected in series to the outputs of the two models, the Examiner asserts that these limitations amount to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). As already discussed previously, a person can practically in his/her mind consider the input biomarker data in relation to mental distress, separately considering the input biomarker data in relation to social rhythm disruption independent of the mental distress determination (i.e., performing such steps "in parallel"), and then determine a composite signal "in series" (e.g., whereby the composite signal depends on the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs), such as by taking an average of or aggregating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption outputs (the patient and caregiver "signals"). In this regard, merely reciting how the recited parallel receipt of input biomarker data and generation of patient/caregiver mental distress/social rhythm disruption signals and in series generation of the composite signal are performed by a "mental distress signal learning model," "social rhythm disruption signal learning model," and "composite signal generator" does not recite any details beyond what a person could practically perform in his/her mind which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
Regarding the additional limitations of how performance of the one or more automated actions includes automatically generating, based at least in part on the composite signal, at least one control signal for controlling at least portions of one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with the abstract idea of responding to the predicted mental distress/social rhythm disruption, the Examiner asserts that this limitations amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and doing no more than generally linking use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). For instance, the catalytic conversion of chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in Parker v. Flook was found to be a field of use limitation because it did not affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). In contrast, the additional limitations in Diamond v. Diehr (e.g., monitoring elapsed time since mold was closed, constantly measuring mold temperature, opening the prese automatically, etc.) were not found to be mere field of use limitations because they were integrated into the claim as a whole. 450 US at 179, 209 USPQ at 5. In the present case, the generic step of generating a control signal for controlling one or more external physical robot-mediated interaction systems in connection with responding to the predicted mental distress and social rhythm disruption is just a token addition not integrated into the claim as a whole because it does not affect how the steps of generating the mental distress and social rhythm disruption signals are generated.
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 2, 15, and 19 recite how the determination of the data-based representations uses one or more AI-based representation learning techniques which amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are not patent eligible. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), pp. 10, 14. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. Id.
-Claims 3, 16, and 20 recite how the predicting uses one or more multivariate time series modeling techniques with one or more probabilistic transformers which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claims 4, 17, and 21 recite how performing one or more automated actions includes automatically initiating one or more avatar-mediated interactions within at least a portion of the given dyad which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 5 recites how performing one or more automated actions includes automatically initiating one or more robot-mediated interactions within at least a portion of the given dyad which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and also amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 9 recites how performing one or more automated actions includes automatically training at least a portion of the one or more artificial intelligence techniques using feedback related to the predicting of at least one of mental distress among the given dyad and social rhythm disruption among the given dyad amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted do not represent a technological improvement because iterative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, Fox Sports Productions, LLC, Case No. 23-2437, (Fed. Cir. 2025), p. 12.
-Claim 10 recites how performing one or more automated actions includes generating and outputting, using one or more user interfaces, one or more visualizations pertaining to the predicting of at least one of mental distress among the given dyad and social rhythm disruption among the given dyad which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 13 recites how software implementing the method is provided as a service in a cloud environment which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Int'l Pub. No. WO 2020/247498 discloses monitoring and delivering in-situ real-time personalized intervention(s) for a patient and/or caregiver. More particularly, the disclosure relates to exchanging information among components of a smart health system with mobile devices and/or smartwatches in regards to a patient and caregiver dyad based on environmental, behavioral, physiological, and contextual data of each of a patient and caregiver.
Int'l Pub. No. WO 2022/209416 discloses an information processing device including an input unit to which voices and images of a patient and a doctor are inputted; an extraction unit (for example, a processing unit) that extracts, from the voices and images of the patient and the doctor, a feature amount relating to communication between the patient and the doctor; an estimation unit (for example, the processing unit) that estimates a satisfaction level, dissatisfaction level, or anxiety level of the patient on the basis of the feature amount; and an output unit that outputs the satisfaction level, dissatisfaction level, or anxiety level of the patient.
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
Prosecution Insights