DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (which incorporates the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, provided by the USPTO, effective January 7, 2019, and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, provided by the USPTO) (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-10 are directed to a method of facilitating management of mental wellness, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claims 11-20 are directed to a system for facilitating management of mental wellness, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: 1) Mathematical Concepts; 2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and 3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claim 11 and claim 1 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 11 is the system claim, while claim 1 covers the matching method. Specifically, independent claim 11 recites (and claim 1 substantially recites the following limitations):
A system for facilitating management of mental wellness, wherein the system comprises:
a communication device configured for:
transmitting a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user, wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language; and
receiving a response information from the user device, wherein the response information comprises a response based on the questionnaire information, wherein the response information is based on the natural language; and
a processing device configured for:
analyzing the response information using a first machine learning model;
determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzing of the response information; and
identifying a therapy information for the user based on the determination of the mental health assessment of the user.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., receiving response information based on a questionnaire; analyzing the response information; determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzed response information; and identifying a therapy for the user based on the mental health assessment). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in representative claim 11 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1 and 11 encompasses a concept that is capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., receiving response information based on a questionnaire; analyzing the response information; determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzed response information; and identifying a therapy for the user based on the mental health assessment).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1 and 11 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually: (1) receiving response information based on a questionnaire (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person can collect responses from a questionnaire); (2) analyzing the response information (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person can analyze the responses from the questionnaire); (3) determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzed response information (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a medical professional assess a person’s mental health based on their analysis of the responses to the questionnaire); and (4) identifying a therapy for the user based on the mental health assessment (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a medical professional determine a course of treatment and/or therapy for a patient based the mental health assessment). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 provide limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, claims 6 and 16 merely recite broad terms for the type of data that is associated with the identified therapy, specifically that the identified therapy information comprises “a first therapy information” and “a second therapy information”, and that the identified second therapy information is based on the mental wellness progress indication (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because a person may reasonably determine a course of treatment and/or therapy for a patient based the mental health assessment and identify any details/information related to the identified therapy (i.e., an observation of a certain type of data)). Similarly, claims 9 and 19 also merely recite broad terms for the type of data that is associated with the questionnaire, response information, mental health assessment, and identified therapy (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally or manually using a pen and paper, because a person may identifying any details/information related to the questionnaire, response information, mental health assessment, and identified therapy (i.e., an observation of the objects in the images and non-image clinical data)).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.” See MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)-(h).
Following Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In the present case, for representative independent claim 11 (similar to claim 1), the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea 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 for facilitating management of mental wellness (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the system comprises:
a communication device (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured for:
transmitting a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user (adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
receiving a response information from the user device, wherein the response information comprises a response based on the questionnaire information, wherein the response information is based on the natural language; and
a processing device (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) configured for:
analyzing the response information using a first machine learning model (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) because they merely recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzing of the response information; and
identifying a therapy information for the user based on the determination of the mental health assessment of the user.
However, the recitation of these limitations is made with a high-level of generality (i.e., using computer devices and software to perform the abstract idea directed to: receiving response information based on a questionnaire; analyzing the response information; determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzed response information; and identifying a therapy for the user based on the mental health assessment), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception because they merely recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
- The following is an example of a court decisions that demonstrates merely applying instructions by reciting a computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed invention (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, e.g., see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l – similarly, the additional elements recited in claims 1 and 11 described in the Prong One analysis of Step 2A above, invokes general-purpose computer (i.e., the system; communication device; processing device; user device; and first machine learning model described in claims 1 and 11) to perform the commonplace business method for analyzing questionnaire response; make a mental health assessment; and identify a therapy for the patient based on the mental health assessment (i.e., a generic mental health assessment and treatment program).; and
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, the first machine learning model is an example of generic software that is used to analyze information (i.e., analyzing the response information).
- The following are examples of insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Examples of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, e.g., see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc. – similarly, the step of “transmitting the questionnaire information to a user device”, described in claims 1 and 11, is the equivalent of obtaining information about the questionnaire.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 11 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 recite the following additional elements (in bold font below):
wherein the identifying of the therapy information is performed using a second machine learning model (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 2 and 12);
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, using the communication device, an emotional response information from the user device, wherein the emotional response information is generated using a sensor associated with the user (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the emotional response information represents an emotion of the user; and analyzing, using the processing device, the emotional response information, wherein the identifying of the therapy information is further based on the analyzing of the emotional response information (as described in claims 3 and 13);
wherein the therapy information comprises a healing frequency indication based on the therapy information, wherein the healing frequency indication represents a frequency of stimulus configured to elicit a desirable positive response within the user, wherein the method further comprises transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device (adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the frequency based on the healing frequency indication (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 4 and 14);
wherein the questionnaire information comprises a first questionnaire information and a second questionnaire information, wherein the transmitting of the second questionnaire information occurs subsequent to the transmitting of the first questionnaire information, wherein the response information comprises a first response information corresponding to the first questionnaire information and a second response information corresponding to the
second questionnaire information, wherein the mental health assessment comprises a first mental health assessment corresponding to the analyzing of the first response information and a second mental health assessment corresponding to the analyzing of the second response information, wherein the method further comprising: comparing, using the processing device, the first mental health assessment with the second mental health assessment; and determining, using the processing device, a mental wellness progress
indication based on the comparing; and storing, using a storage device, the mental wellness progress indication (adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in a memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) using a distributed ledger (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (as described in claims 5 and 15);
wherein the method further comprises generating, using the processing device, the questionnaire using a third machine learning model (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 7 and 17);
further comprising transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device (adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), wherein the therapy information comprises an audio-visual space indication, wherein the audio-visual space indication represents an audio-visual content configured to elicit a desirable positive response within the user, wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the audio-visual content based on the audio-visual space indication (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 8 and 18); and
wherein the identifying of the second therapy information is performed using a fourth machine learning model (the Examiner submits that these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 10 and 20).
As such, the additional elements in dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-20: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 amount to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20, as recited, the system; communication device; user device; processing device; first machine learning model; second machine learning model; sensor; stimulus generator; storage device; distributed ledger; third machine learning model; fourth machine learning model; and the steps of: “transmitting a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user”; “wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language”; “wherein the emotional response information is generated using a sensor associated with the user”; “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device”; “wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the frequency based on the healing frequency indication”; “storing, using a storage device, the mental wellness progress indication”; “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device”; and “wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the audio-visual content based on the audio-visual space indication”, are generic computer components and functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the system; communication device; user device; processing device; first machine learning model; second machine learning model; sensor; stimulus generator; storage device; distributed ledger; third machine learning model; fourth machine learning model; and the steps of: “wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language”; “wherein the emotional response information is generated using a sensor associated with the user”; “wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the frequency based on the healing frequency indication”; and “wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the audio-visual content based on the audio-visual space indication” - these additional elements are deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B for the following reasons:
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- Further, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps directed to: “transmitting a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user”; “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device”; “storing, using a storage device, the mental wellness progress indication”; and “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device” - The following represent examples that courts have identified as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see id.):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the limitations directed to: “transmitting a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user”; “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device”; and “transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent the receipt and transmission of data over a network (i.e., transmitting the questionnaire information and therapy information to the user device are merely sending/transmitting signals or data over a network).
- Storing and retrieving information in a memory, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the limitations directed to “storing, using a storage device, the mental wellness progress indication” are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent the mere storing of data in a memory device.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, 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 functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 (which depend on claims 1 and 11 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Mellem et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0341152), in view of:
- Shriberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0385711).
Regarding claims 1 and 11,
- Mellem et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0341152) teaches:
- a method of facilitating management of mental wellness (Mellem, paragraph [0002]; Paragraph [0002] teaches systems and methods for machine learning-based mental health diagnostic tools.), the method comprising (as described in claim 1):
- a system for facilitating management of mental wellness (Mellem, paragraph [0002]; Paragraph [0002] teaches systems and methods for machine learning-based mental health diagnostic tools.), wherein the system comprises: a communication device and a processing device configured for (as described in claim 11) (Mellem, paragraphs [0062] and [0072]; Paragraph [0062] teaches that the system includes a processor-based device 204 (i.e., a processing device), and paragraph [0072] teaches that the processor-based device 204 communicates with one or more remote computers (i.e., a communication device).):
- transmitting, using a communication device, a questionnaire information to a user device associated with a user (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Mellem, paragraph [0106]; Paragraph [0106] teaches that the user interface 708 is configured to receive input from a user 704. For example, the user interface 708 can be a keyboard, a touchscreen, a mobile device, or any other device for receiving input, as known in the art. The user 704 enters data on the user interface 708 in response to prompts on the display 702. For example, the display 702 outputs a series of mental health questions (i.e., transmitting questionnaire information to a user device).);
- receiving, using the communication device, a response information from the user device, wherein the response information comprises a response based on the questionnaire information (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Mellem, paragraph [0106]; Paragraph [0106] teaches that the user 704 inputs an answer to each question on the user interface 708. The user interface 708 is configured to directly display the input on display 702 and is configured to relay the data to the remote computing device 710 (i.e., receiving response information based on the questionnaire information from the user device at the communication device, where the remote computing device 710 is interpreted as being the equivalent of the communication device).);
- analyzing, using a processing device, the response information using a first machine learning model (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Mellem, paragraph [0127]; Paragraph [0127] teaches that methodology 740 of FIG. 7D uses a machine learning model to analyze input (i.e., a first machine learning model analyzes the user’s response information).);
- determining, using the processing device, a mental health assessment of the user based on the analyzing of the response information (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Mellem, paragraph [0127]; Paragraph [0127] teaches that methodology 740 of FIG. 7D uses a machine learning model to analyze input and output a mental health indication (i.e., determining a mental health assessment of the user based on the analysis performed by the first machine learning model in analyzing the user’s response information).).
- Mellem does not explicitly teach a method and system, comprising:
- wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language (as described in claims 1 and 11);
- wherein the response information is based on the natural language (as described in claims 1 and 11); and
- identifying, using the processing device, a therapy information for the user based on the determination of the mental health assessment of the user (as described in claims 1 and 11).
- However, in analogous art of mental health assessment systems and methods, Shriberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0385711) teaches a method and system, comprising:
wherein the questionnaire information is based on a natural language (as described in claims 1 and 11); and wherein the response information is based on the natural language (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Shriberg, paragraph [0069]; Paragraph [0069] teaches that method can comprise using a natural language processing algorithm to process data of the subject to identify or assess the mental state of a subject (i.e., the questionnaire information and response information are both based on a natural language algorithm).); and
- identifying, using the processing device, a therapy information for the user based on the determination of the mental health assessment of the user (as described in claims 1 and 11) (Shriberg, paragraphs [0470] and [0481]; Paragraph [0481] teaches that Action 5000 (FIG. 50) includes action logic 5002 and one or more next work-flow element(s) 5004. Action logic 5002 represents the substantive action to be taken by work-flow execution logic 4806 and typically makes or recommends a particular course of action in the care of the patient that may range from specific treatment protocols to more holistic paradigms (i.e., identifying therapy information for the user based on the determination of user’s mental health assessment). Paragraph [0470] teaches that these features are beneficial for making expert recommendations in response to health state analysis and interactive health screening or monitoring logic.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mental health assessment systems and methods at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for diagnosing a plurality of mental health disorders taught by Mellem, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) using a natural language algorithm to process and access data of a subject; and (ii) recommend specific treatment protocols and/or a particular course of action in the care of a patient, as taught by Shriberg, in order to make expert recommendations in response to health state analysis and interactive health screening or monitoring logic. See Mellem, paragraph [0470]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on) and claim 11 (which claim 12 depends on), as described above.
- Shriberg further teaches a method and system, wherein:
- the identifying of the therapy information is performed using a second machine learning model (as described in claims 2 and 12) (Shriberg, paragraph [0383]; Paragraph [0383] teaches that the action selection (i.e., the identified therapy information) is based on a machine learned model (i.e., the identified therapy information is performed using a “second machine learning model”).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the method and system for diagnosing a plurality of mental health disorders taught by Mellem, in view of Shriberg, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 3 and 13,
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on) and claim 11 (which claim 13 depends on), as described above.
- Mellem further teaches a method and system, further comprising:
- receiving, using the communication device, an emotional response information from the user device (Mellem, paragraph [0139]; Paragraph [0139] teaches that mental health screeners and models frequently benefit from examining more than one modality and may produce far superior accuracy in some examples. Further, paragraph [0139] generally teaches that certain features may be critically important to an assessment of the mental health of a patient, as for example, a statement may be read in various tones of voice, or spoken with the same tone of voice but with different facial expressions—all conveying different emotions (i.e., receiving an emotional response information from the user device) and mental health status indicators.), wherein the emotional response information is generated using a sensor associated with the user (Mellem, paragraph [0071]; Paragraph [0071] teaches that the user can enter commands and information via a pointer, for example through input devices such as a touch screen 248 via a finger 244a, and other input devices, including a microphone, joystick, game pad, tablet, scanner, biometric scanning device, etc. (i.e., examples of sensors for generating the emotional response information).), wherein the emotional response information represents an emotion of the user (as described in claims 3 and 13) (Mellem, paragraph [0139]; Paragraph [0139] generally teaches that paragraph [0139] generally teaches that certain features may be critically important to an assessment of the mental health of a patient, as for example, a statement may be read in various tones of voice, or spoken with the same tone of voice but with different facial expressions—all conveying different emotions (i.e., the emotional responses represent different emotions of the user) and mental health status indicators.); and
- analyzing, using the processing device, the emotional response information (as described in claims 3 and 13) (Mellem, paragraph [0140]; Paragraph [0140] teaches that the mental health questionnaire data, voice data, and/or video data can be input into the model to determine a mental health indication of a patient (i.e., the model analyzes the emotional response information from the voice data and video data received from the patient).).
- Shriberg further teaches a method and system, wherein:
- the identifying of the therapy information is further based on the analyzing of the emotional response information (as described in claims 3 and 13) (Shriberg, paragraphs [0152] and [0513]; Paragraph [0152] teaches that the composite model may analyze, in real time, the audiovisual signal of the patient to estimate the patient’s health. mental health questionnaire data, voice data, and/or video data can be input into the model to determine a mental health indication of a patient (i.e., the model analyzes the emotional response information from the voice data and video data received from the patient). Paragraph [0513] teaches that system may include a method of using a voice-based biomarker to dynamically affect a course of treatment (i.e., the therapy information is affected by and based on the user’s emotional response information). The system may log elicitations of users over a period of time and determine, from the logged elicitations, whether or not treatment has been effective. For example, if voice-based biomarkers become less indicative of depression over a long time period, this might be evidence that the prescribed treatment is working. On the other hand, if the voice-based biomarkers become more indicative of depression over a long time period, the system may prompt health care providers to pursue a change in treatment, or to pursue the current course of treatment more aggressively (i.e., the therapy information is affected by and based on the user’s emotional response information).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the method and system for diagnosing a plurality of mental health disorders taught by Mellem, in view of Shriberg, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 7 and 17,
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 7 depends on) and claim 11 (which claim 17 depends on), as described above.
- Mellem further teaches a method and system, wherein:
- the method further comprises generating, using the processing device, the questionnaire using a third machine learning model (as described in claims 7 and 17) (Mellem, paragraph [0050]; Paragraph [0050] teaches that the systems and methods of screening people for mental health disorders by using a machine learning approach (i.e., a third machine learning model) to select the most informative questions from a broad set of questionnaires for assessing those disorders (i.e., using the third machine learning model to generate the questionnaire).).
The motivation and rationale for modifying the method and system for diagnosing a plurality of mental health disorders taught by Mellem, in view of Shriberg, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11 above similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 4, 8, 9, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- The combination of: Mellem et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0341152), as modified in view of Shriberg et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0385711), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of:
- Khan (Pub. No. US 2021/0366591).
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 4 depends on) and claim 11 (which claim 14 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, does not explicitly teach a method and system, wherein:
- the therapy information comprises a healing frequency indication based on the therapy information, wherein the healing frequency indication represents a frequency of stimulus configured to elicit a desirable positive response within the user, wherein the communication device is further configured for transmitting the therapy information to the user device, wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the frequency based on the healing frequency indication (as described in claims 4 and 14).
- However, in analogous art of mental health assessment generation and treatment systems and methods, Khan (Pub. No. US 2021/0366591) teaches a method and system, wherein:
- the therapy information comprises a healing frequency indication based on the therapy information (Khan, paragraphs [0175]; Paragraph [0175] teaches that the app also provides testing to administer therapy (i.e., generating therapy information) commensurate with the outcome of the testing, such therapy being inclusive of isochronic sounds or tones, where paragraph [0176] teaches that isochronic sounds or tones are generally understood to be a fast and effective audio-based way to stimulate various areas of the brain by guiding dominant brainwave activity to different frequencies resulting in a change in the mental state of the listener (i.e., the therapy information comprising a healing frequency).), wherein the healing frequency indication represents a frequency of stimulus configured to elicit a desirable positive response within the user (Khan, paragraph [0217]; Paragraph [0217] teaches that as contemplated by the isochronic sound mental health treatment system 500, generation of particular isochronic sounds and tones corresponding to specific negative mood states changes the dominant brainwave frequency and guides the brain of the listener to a preferred to optimum state (i.e., the Examiner is interpreting the particular isochronic sounds and tones to be the equivalent of the healing frequency, which is to guide the listener to a preferred, optimum state, i.e., elicit a desirable positive response.), wherein the communication device is further configured for transmitting the therapy information to the user device, wherein the user device comprises a stimulus generator configured to generate a stimulus corresponding to the frequency based on the healing frequency indication (as described in claims 4 and 14) (Khan, paragraphs [0176] and [0235]; Paragraph [0235] teaches that the system imparts real-time interaction provided by each icon 710-724 triggers calculative feedback resulting in the optimization and deliverance of appropriate isochronic sound waves (i.e., transmitting the therapy information to the user device), e.g., via the isochronic sound module 310 of the computer-based client mental health treatment system 300 shown in FIG. 3, targeting theta brain wave frequencies specific to individual negative mood states, e.g., anxiety, stress, etc. Paragraph [0176] teaches that these features are beneficial for providing a fast and effective audio-based way to stimulate various areas of the brain (i.e., generating a stimulus corresponding to the healing frequency sent to the patient, where the Examiner is interpreting the isochronic sound waves and tones as being the equivalent of the healing frequency), which is generally understood to guide dominant brain activity to different frequencies resulting in a change in the mental state of the listener.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of systems and methods for conducting and managing medical assessments at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system and method for diagnosing a plurality of mental health disorders taught by Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, to incorporate steps and features directed to administering audio therapy to patients with mental health disorders, including transmitting particular isochronic sounds and tones, as taught by Khan, in order to provide a fast and effective audio-based way to stimulate various areas of the brain, which is generally understood to guide dominant brain activity to different frequencies resulting in a change in the mental state of the listener. See Khan, paragraph [0176]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claims 8 and 18,
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, teaches the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 8 depends on) and claim 11 (which claim 18 depends on), as described above.
- The combination of: Mellem, as modified in view of Shriberg, does not explicitly teach a method and system, further comprising:
- transmitting, using the communication device, the therapy information to the user device, wherein the therapy information compr