DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the response filed 17 October 2025, on an application filed 16 June 2023, which claims foreign priority to an application filed 28 September 2021.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 September 2004 has been considered by the Office to the extent indicated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are replete with written description requirement inadequacies. What follows is an incomplete list of the written description requirement inadequacies
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation of recommending an AI based therapy, or a human interaction-based therapy for reducing a stress based on the level of distress of the user and a specific domain. The patent application does not provide an adequate formula or algorithm explaining how the therapy is recommended. For example, the published specification, in paragraph [0050] states that a therapy may be recommended. The specification does not, however, disclose an adequate formula or algorithm explaining how the therapy is recommended. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Claims 6 and 8-10 have similar written description requirement inadequacies with regard to the following material:
6. updating the sets of questions using machine learning based on historical data associated with each user screened using the screening tool;
8. wherein generating the report based on EWI comprises identifying varying levels of distress related to each of the at least one domain, indicating an extent of distress in relation to underlying causes, wherein the report further indicates key stresses and impact of the key stresses on the user;
10. automated triaging, by referring the user to one of a psychologist, a psychiatrist, any trained person and a combination thereof, based on the level of distress of the user and the associated at least one domain.
To the extent that other claims rely on claims that are rejected under 35 USC 112 and fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims they rely on, those other claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims they rely on. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-8 and 10-12 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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10-12 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 12 are drawn to a method for screening mental health using a screening tool, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 11 is drawn to a system for screening mental health using a screening tool, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 11 recites: A system for screening of mental health using a screening tool, the system comprises:
a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which, on execution, causes the processor to:
provide a first set of questions from a set of questions to a user by rendering on a user device 103;
receive a natural language reply to each of the first set of question in the set of questions;
assign a weightage to each of the first set of questions in the set of questions based on analysis of the natural language reply to each of the first set of question in the set of questions, wherein the weightage assigned to each of the first set of questions is amended based on a facial expression of lips, a facial expression of eyes, a behavioral expression, and a change in a tone of voice of the user captured while replying to the first set of questions using at least one of a speaker, a mic, or camera of the user device 103;
select a second set of questions from the set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions, wherein the second set of questions are rendered to the user device 103 of the user, wherein for each natural language reply received from the user for the second set of questions, the weightage is assigned to each of the second set of questions based on analysis of corresponding natural language reply;
generate an Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) for the user based on the weightage assigned to each of the first set of questions and the second set of questions, wherein the EWI comprises cumulative weightage for each domain, wherein the cumulative weightage is determined based on a summation of the weightage assigned to the first set of questions and the second set of questions, wherein the Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) is generated for each of the at least one domain selected from domestic life domain, situational/circumstantial domain, nature of the user domain, professional life domain, and clinical domain;
generate a report based on the EWI, wherein the report is rendered on the user device 103 and the report indicates a level of distress to the user based on the EWI associated with each of the at least one domain; and
recommend an Al based therapy, or a human interaction-based therapy for reducing a stress based on the level of distress of the user and a specific domain from the at least one domain.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 1 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 11, because the only difference between claims 1 and 11 is that claim 1 recites a method, whereas claim 11 recites a system.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a process that comprises managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the provision of healthcare to a user by screening their responses to questions, assigning values to the responses and diagnosing the user based on their responses, e.g. the process a therapist enacts with every patient; the various functions can be assumed to be composed of human intelligence processing abilities), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 12 include other limitations, for example claim 2 recites details on expression capturing, claims 6 and 7 recite details on the weightage and question determination, claims 8 and 10 recite details on reporting and recommending treatments based on EWI and claim 12 uses a color-coding scheme, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 12 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 12 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the user device and the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language reciting various data which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to implementation via instructions, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data/report compiling and transmission, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 12 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the machine learning in claim 6), and/or adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data/report compiling and transmission, and/or insignificant application (e.g., the report generation of claims 8 and 10) and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the dispensing device and the one or more processors), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0011] and [0028] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the one or more processors) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating 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 data, processes the data, and transmits a report.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10 and 12 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the machine learning in claim 6), and/or adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data/report compiling and transmission, and/or insignificant application (e.g., the report generation of claims 8 and 10), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning 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, 6-8 and 10-12 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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shriberg et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0110894 A1), hereinafter Shriberg, further in view of Kyllonen et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2015/0269529 A1), hereinafter Kyllonen.
As per claims 1 and 11, Shriberg discloses method and a system for screening of mental health using a screening tool, the system (See Shriberg, Figs. 2 and 8.) comprises:
a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores processor instructions, which, on execution, causes the processor to (Shriberg, Fig. 1A.):
provide a first set of questions from a set of questions to a user by rendering on a user device 103 (Shriberg discloses provision of audiovisual signal questions to a user on a user device #112, see paragraph 187 and 208, and Fig. 8 #802.);
receive a natural language reply to each of the first set of question in the set of questions (Patient responses are analyzed using an NLP model, see paragraphs 150, 187 and 215.);
assign a weightage to each of the first set of questions in the set of questions based on analysis of the natural language reply to each of the first set of question in the set of questions, wherein the weightage assigned to each of the first set of questions is amended based on a facial expression of lips, a facial expression of eyes, a behavioral expression, and a change in a tone of voice of the user captured while replying to the first set of questions using at least one of a speaker, a mic, or camera of the user device 103 (Shriberg discloses assigning quality weights to questions using interaction control logic generator, see paragraphs 20-210, 226, 227 and Fig. 12. Note paragraph 211 in particular. Visual model 1820 analyzes the user’s facial expressions, see paragraphs 290, 295, 351, 408 415 and Fig. 42. Shriberg considers voice-based biomarkers, see paragraphs 177, 178, 291, 393, as well as lip/mouth expressions and eye expressions, see paragraphs 295, 352-356, 389 and 415-418, all of which would comprise behavioral expressions.);
select a second set of questions from the set of questions … wherein the second set of questions are rendered to the user device 103 of the user, wherein for each natural language reply received from the user for the second set of questions, the weightage is assigned to each of the second set of questions based on analysis of corresponding natural language reply (Shriberg, Fig. 8 and paragraphs 199 and 208; see also Figures 8, 16, 29, 321 and 33.);
generate an Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) for the user based on the weightage assigned to each of the first set of questions and the second set of questions, wherein the EWI comprises cumulative weightage for each domain, wherein the cumulative weightage is determined based on a summation of the weightage assigned to the first set of questions and the second set of questions, wherein the Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) is generated for each of the at least one domain selected from domestic life domain, situational/circumstantial domain, nature of the user domain, professional life domain, and clinical domain (Shriberg provides a mental health score based on weights assigned to user responses, see paragraph 32, 34, 308 and 329-331. It is the Office’s position that a mental health score would comprise a domain that simultaneously reflects all of the following domains: domestic life domain, situational/circumstantial domain, nature of the user domain, professional life domain, and clinical domain.);
generate a report based on the EWI, wherein the report is rendered on the user device 103 and the report indicates a level of distress to the user based on the EWI associated with each of the at least one domain (Score can be converted into one or more scores with a clinical value, which is then provided to the subject and/or contact of the subject, see paragraphs 38-40, 171, 428. Score can comprise a qualitative diagnosis, such as “high risk of severe depression”, which would comprise the level of distress to the user based on the EWI. As mental health is reflective of all listed domains, it is specific to each domain.); and
recommend an Al based therapy, or a human interaction-based therapy for reducing a stress based on the level of distress of the user and a specific domain from the at least one domain (Shriberg discloses recommending referrals to psychiatrists based on determined diagnosis, see paragraphs 481-482.).
Shriberg fails to explicitly disclose selecting a second set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions.
Kyllonen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of computer communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide selecting a second set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions to present a more efficient question and response system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mental health assessment system of Shriberg to include selecting a second set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions, as taught by Kyllonen, in order to provide a mental health assessment system that presents a more efficient question and response system.
Both Shriberg and Kyllonen are directed to the electronic processing of personal data and specifically to score and response survey systems. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 6-8 and 10, Shriberg/Kyllonen discloses claim 1, discussed above, Shriberg also discloses:
6. updating the sets of questions using machine learning based on historical data associated with each user screened using the screening tool (Shriberg updates question model using machine learning based on historical data of a number of subject responses, see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 189-199.);
7. repeating 501 to 503 until questions about the domestic life domain, the situational/circumstantial domain, the nature of the user domain, the professional life domain, and the clinical questions domain are covered (System loops with questions from Fig. 8 #806-814 until “(i) all mandatory questions have been asked and answered by the patient and (ii) the measure of confidence in the score resulting from screening or monitoring determined in step 812 is at least a predetermined threshold”, see paragraphs 199-201. User’s mental health domain is relevant to all listed domains.”);
8. wherein generating the report based on EWI comprises identifying varying levels of distress related to each of the at least one domain, indicating an extent of distress in relation to underlying causes, wherein the report further indicates key stresses and impact of the key stresses on the user (Score can be converted into one or more scores with a clinical value, which is then provided to the subject and/or contact of the subject, see paragraphs 38-40, 171, 428. Score can comprise a qualitative diagnosis, such as “high risk of severe depression”, which would comprise the level of distress to the user based on the EWI. As mental health is reflective of all listed domains, it is specific to each domain.);
10. automated triaging, by referring the user to one of a psychologist, a psychiatrist, any trained person and a combination thereof, based on the level of distress of the user and the associated at least one domain (Shriberg discloses recommending referrals to psychiatrists based on determined diagnosis, see paragraphs 481-482.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shriberg/Kyllonen further in view of McGarvey et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0020454 A1), hereinafter McGarvey.
As per claims 6-8 and 10, Shriberg/Kyllonen discloses claim 1, discussed above, Shriberg also discloses wherein the report renders the levels of distress using a … scheme (Report provides a scaled score of mental wellness, such as between 1 and 5, see Shriberg paragraphs 421-424).
Shriberg fails to explicitly disclose a color-coded scheme that scores patient wellness.
McGarvey teaches that it was old and well known in the art of computer communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a color-coded scheme that scores patient wellness (See McGarvey, paragraph 86 at least.) in order to provide a simplified, quick and clear indication of patient mental wellness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mental health assessment system of Shriberg/Kyllonen to include selecting a second set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions, as taught by McGarvey, in order to arrive at a mental health assessment system that can provide a simplified, quick and clear indication of patient mental wellness.
Both Shriberg and Kyllonen are directed to the electronic processing of patient data and specifically to score and response survey systems. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 October 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, this rejection has been removed.
The Office agrees and has removed the rejection.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 17 October 2025 concerning the remaining rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant argues on pages 3-6 that:
A. Claims 1,11: “The claimed recommendation is not made arbitrarily, but is derived from the Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) and the domain-specific cumulative weightage computed through AI-based analysis of natural language responses, facial expressions, tone, and behavioral data.”
B. Claim 6: “Paragraphs [0037]-[0042] explain that the system ‘assigns weightage’ to responses, and the ‘amended weightage’ influences the next set of questions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using historical data to refine question sets is a standard supervised-learning technique in AI-based screening systems.”
C. Claim 8: Applicant appears to argue that the indication of the impact of the key stresses on the user would comprise “the EWI magnitude per domain”.
D. Claim 10: “Applicant clarifies that such referral is automatically triggered by the EWI and domain- specific distress level.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the 112(a) rejections above.
Regarding A., the Office agrees that paragraph 50 indicates that a 1 of 2 therapies may be recommended based on a level of distress. The specification does not, however, disclose an adequate formula or algorithm explaining how the therapy is recommended. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Applicant claims that the specification discloses that an AI-based therapy for low to moderate distress levels or a human based therapy for higher distress levels. This argument fails as the specification does not recite this distinction.
Regarding B., The Office disagrees that APOSITA “would understand that using historical data to refine question sets is a standard supervised-learning technique in AI-based screening systems.” Further, amended weightage influencing the next set of questions is not equivalent to updating the sets of questions using machine learning based on historical data associated with each user screened using the screening tool.
Regarding C., there is nothing in the claims or specification that supports Applicant’s position that the indication of the impact of the key stresses on the user would comprise “the EWI magnitude per domain”. Accordingly, there is nothing in the originally filed application that provides a route for determining key stresses and impact of the key stresses on the user.
Regarding D., paragraph [0051] of the present Application supports the idea of automated triaging, however, the specification does not, however, disclose an adequate formula or algorithm explaining how the automated triaging is done based on the level of distress of the user and the associated at least one domain. Therefore, one skilled in the art of healthcare intervention, upon reading the specification, would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed inventions on the day the application was filed.
Accordingly, these rejections have been upheld.
With regard to the interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 6-29 that:
A. The claims do not recite an abstract idea as they do not recite methods of organizing human activity as they recite use of a computer.
B. The claims do not recite an abstract idea as they do not recite mental processes or a mathematical concept.
C. The claimed subject matter is integrated into a practical application “that allows for practical and meaningful health assessment and evaluation in real-time” and address the technical problems of the limitations of existing health screening tools through use of computers.
D. The claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea via a technological improvement to health screening through use of natural language processing
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory analysis of the claims, issued above.
Regarding argument A., MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(11) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Office submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to provide healthcare to a user by screening their responses to questions, assigning values to the responses and diagnosing the user based on their responses. The Office notes that Applicant's Background describes screening and providing healthcare as a human task. Furthermore, the Office submits that healthcare itself is inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to provide healthcare to a user by screening their responses to questions, assigning values to the responses and diagnosing the user based on their responses, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding B., the Office did not characterize the claims as being directed to mental processes or a mathematical concept.
Regarding C., the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as shown in the statutory analysis above. Applicant’s claims are not supported by the claim language as filed as there is no nexus between the applicant’s language and the claims, which merely generically recite computer processing steps.
Regarding D., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Spec. paragraphs 11 and 28) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine). Health screening is not a technology.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 30-43 that Shriberg fails to disclose the claims as amended because:
A. Shriberg and Kyllonen fails to disclose: i. Real-time amendment of question weightages based on facial expressions, etc., ii. Generating an EWI for one or more domains based on weights assigned to questions and iii. Generating reports that identify distress levels specific to one or more domains.
B. “While McGarvey discloses an "empathy meter" that visually represents emotional reaction information and may include color-coded graphics (e.g., green smile, yellow flat mouth, or red frown) for the quality of a care interaction, McGarvey's teaching is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. Specifically, McGarvey's color-coded display relates to real-time evaluation of the empathetic quality of a care interaction between a patient and a healthcare provider, based on a predefined empathy rating system derived from interaction variables such as tone, expression, and discussion content. The purpose is to provide feedback on the emotional interaction during the care session, not to generate a comprehensive Emotional Wellness Index (EWI) across multiple distinct wellness domains, as recited in the Applicant's claims.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the prior art rejection above, wherein the claims are disclosed over a combination of references.
Regarding A.i., Shriberg discloses assigning quality weights to questions using interaction control logic generator, see paragraphs 20-210, 226, 227 and Fig. 12. Note paragraph 211 in particular. Visual model 1820 analyzes the user’s facial expressions, see paragraphs 290, 295, 351, 408 415 and Fig. 42. Shriberg considers voice-based biomarkers, see paragraphs 177, 178, 291, 393, as well as lip/mouth expressions and eye expressions, see paragraphs 295, 352-356, 389 and 415-418, all of which would comprise behavioral expressions. There is nothing in the claims indicating that the question amendment is done in “real-time.” Kyllonen discloses selecting a second set of questions based on the amended weightage assigned to the first set of questions.
Accordingly, the combination of Shriberg and Kyllonen disclose the contested limitation, as shown above.
Regarding A.ii., Shriberg provides a mental health score based on weights assigned to user responses, see paragraph 32, 34, 308 and 329-331. It is the Office’s position that a mental health score would comprise a domain that simultaneously reflects all of the following domains: domestic life domain, situational/circumstantial domain, nature of the user domain, professional life domain, and clinical domain. Kyllonen is not used to disclose this limitation.
Regarding A.iii., in Shriberg, the score can be converted into one or more scores with a clinical value, which is then provided to the subject and/or contact of the subject, see paragraphs 38-40, 171, 428. Score can comprise a qualitative diagnosis, such as “high risk of severe depression”, which would comprise the level of distress to the user based on the EWI. As mental health is reflective of all listed domains, it is specific to each domain. Kyllonen is not used to disclose this limitation.
Regarding B., McGarvey is merely utilized to disclose the color coding scheme missing in the combination of Shriberg/Kyllonen, which it does. The rejection is based under a combination rejection, not an anticipation rejection by McGarvey alone.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here the combination of the cited references disclose the contested limitation.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Shriberg, Kyllonen and McGarvey, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (25 July 2025, 20 March 2025 and 10 December 2024), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
30 January 2025