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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 08/18/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 14-21 have been amended; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 14-21 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 03/04/2022
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant states that the claims recite a particular disorder and a particular treatment. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the present claims do recite a particular disorder, but do not recite a particular treatment. Reciting that a treatment is for treating a disease is not reciting a particular treatment for a particular affliction. The particularity of treatment is not present. As can be seen in Example 43, claims 1 and 2, there is a distinction between what is particular and what is not. The present claims would need to recite what that treatment is (if supported in the specification).
Additionally, Applicant points to the specification for supporting the technical nature of the solution to the technical problem. Applicant states that there is a treatment administration step, however the present claims do not recite such a limitation. There is administration but administration of a session of the treatment pathway where this can reflect providing instructions rather than providing an actual, particular treatment. Pointing back to Example 43, claims 1 and 2, the present claims do not recite an active treatment step in a similar manner as the provided example. The present claims would need to recite the administration of a treatment as opposed to administration of a session of a treatment pathway (if supported in the specification).
Dependent Claims:
Applicant argues that the dependent claims should overcome the 101 in view of the independent claims overcoming the 101. Examiner however respectfully disagrees based on the above reasoning.
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 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 16-17 are drawn to a method, claims 14 and 18-19 are drawn to a system, and claims 15 and 20-21 are drawn to a medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and 14-21 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method for treatment of depression, the method comprising:
1) receiving, by a) a treatment system, user input;
2) detecting, by the treatment system, one or more keywords present in the user input;
3) in response to detecting the one or more keywords:
3a) first prompting, by the treatment system via b) a user interface of a user device, a user for a self-reporting of cognitive information for the user;
3b) receiving, by the treatment system from the user via the user interface of the user device in response to the prompt, self-reported data indicative of a situation encountered by the user;
3c) transforming, by the treatment system, the self-reported data into a first vector representation;
3d) classifying, by the treatment system and using c) a first trained computer model, the first vector representation as one of i) representing cognitive information or ii) as not representing cognitive information;
4) in response to classifying the vector representation as not representing cognitive information:
4a) second prompting, by the treatment system via the user interface of the user device, the user for self-reporting of further cognitive information for the user; and
5) in response to classifying the vector representation as representing cognitive information:
5a) applying, by the treatment system, the self-reported data as input to d) a second trained computer model to determine a classification associated with the self- reported data;
5b) determining, by the treatment system, that the classification associated with the self-reported data corresponds to a diagnosis classification in a predetermined group of diagnosis classifications that are each associated with a predicted medical diagnosis;
6) in response to determining that the classification corresponds to the diagnosis classification in the predetermined group of classifications:
6a) determining, by the treatment system based on the diagnosis classification, a medical diagnosis of depression for the user;
6b) incrementing, by the treatment system, a number of occurrences of the medical diagnosis of depression for the user; and
7) in response to determining that the number of occurrences of the medical diagnosis of depression has exceeded a threshold:
7a) generating, based on at least one of the classification associated with the self-reported data and the self-reported data, a treatment pathway for the user, the treatment pathway comprising one or more parameters, at least one parameter of the one or more parameters being indicative of a frequency of a treatment for the user;
7b) providing, by the treatment system for presentation to the user via the user interface of the user device as feedback to the user, a notification indicative of the medical diagnosis of depression;
7c) providing, by the treatment system for presentation to the user via the user interface of the user device as feedback to the user, a notification to complete a session of the treatment pathway;
7d) administering, by the treatment system, the session of the treatment pathway for treating depression of the user, the administering comprising presenting to the user, via the user interface of the user device, directions to lead the user though the session of the treatment pathway; and
7e) providing, by the treatment system to a therapist for use in treating the depression of the user, a notification indicative of one or both of the medical diagnosis of depression and the self-reported data indicative of the situation encountered by the user.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receiving user input, 2) detecting one or more keywords present in the user input, 3) in response to detecting the one or more keywords: 3a) first prompting a user for a self-reporting of cognitive information for the user, 3b) receiving, from the user in response to the prompt, self-reported data indicative of a situation encountered by the user, 3d) classifying, using a first model, the first vector representation as one of i) representing cognitive information or ii) as not representing cognitive information, 4) in response to classifying the vector representation as not representing cognitive information: 4a) second prompting the user for self-reporting of further cognitive information for the user, and 5) in response to classifying the vector representation as representing cognitive information: 5a) applying the self-reported data as input to a second model to determine a classification associated with the self-reported data, 5b) determining that the classification associated with the self-reported data corresponds to a diagnosis classification in a predetermined group of diagnosis classifications that are each associated with a predicted medical diagnosis, 6) in response to determining that the classification corresponds to the diagnosis classification in the predetermined group of classifications: 6a) determining, based on the diagnosis classification, a medical diagnosis of depression for the user, 6b) incrementing a number of occurrences of the medical diagnosis of depression for the user, and 7) in response to determining that the number of occurrences of the medical diagnosis of depression has exceeded a threshold: 7a) generating, based on at least one of the classification associated with the self-reported data and the self-reported data, a treatment pathway for the user, the treatment pathway comprising one or more parameters, at least one parameter of the one or more parameters being indicative of a frequency of a treatment for the user, 7b) providing, by the treatment system for presentation to the user via the user interface of the user device as feedback to the user, a notification indicative of the medical diagnosis of depression, 7c) providing, by the treatment system for presentation to the user via the user interface of the user device as feedback to the user, a notification to complete a session of the treatment pathway, 7d) administering, by the treatment system, the session of the treatment pathway for treating depression of the user, the administering comprising presenting to the user, via the user interface of the user device, directions to lead the user though the session of the treatment pathway, and 7e) providing, by the treatment system to a therapist for use in treating the depression of the user, a notification indicative of one or both of the medical diagnosis of depression and the self-reported data indicative of the situation encountered by the user. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to assess if a person has a disorder.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the steps of 3c) transforming the self-reported data into a first vector representation and 3d) classifying, using a first model, the first vector representation as one of i) representing cognitive information or ii) as not representing cognitive information. These steps correspond to Mathematical Concepts.
Going forward, the above limitations will be considered as a single abstract concept. Furthermore, independent claims 14 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 16-21 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14-15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 16, 18, and 20 add the additional step of “providing, by the treatment system to a therapist for use in treating the depression of the user, the treatment pathway for the user” and claims 17, 19, and 21 add the additional step of “the therapist applying the treatment pathway for the user to treat the depression of the user according to the treatment pathway for the user”. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 16-21 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 14-15 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a treatment system comprising a a1) processor and a2) non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform operations for treatment of depression (from claim 14), b) a user interface of a user device, c) a first trained computer model, and d) a second trained computer model to perform the claimed steps.
The a) treatment system comprising a a1) processor and a2) non-transitory computer readable storage medium in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0003] of page 7 of the specification where the system/device is a generic smartphone, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, b) user interface of a user device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to amounts to mere data gathering and insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the c) first and d) second trained computer model in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims 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 the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a treatment system comprising a a1) processor and a2) non-transitory computer readable storage medium, b) a user interface of a user device, c) a first trained computer model, and d) a second trained computer model to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain mathematical concepts and certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention provides notifications utilizing a) a treatment system comprising a a1) processor and a2) non-transitory computer readable storage medium, thus this computing device is adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the b) user interface of a user device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives user input data, and transmits the data to system over a network, for example the Internet. Inversely, the data is being sent to the user device over a network for display from the system.
Lastly, the current invention classifies data utilizing a c) first and d) second trained computer model, thus these models are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 14-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights