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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 09/04/2025 is acknowledged. The election is made as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 22 September 2023.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objection
Claims 8-9 are objected to because they recite a minor informality with respect to claim form. MPEP 608.01(m) specifies that “each claim […] ends with a period.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because they recite the limitation “AI” since it has not been previously introduced in the claim. Examiner is not sure if AI is an abbreviation or a data label. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-12 are objected to because they recite the limitation “the predicted outcome” since it has not been previously introduced in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/976,675 and 17/174,962 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claim 2, the prior-filed applications do not provide support for receiving additional patient data from a behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module. Examiner cannot find disclosure for this claimed feature in the prior filed applications. For claim 3, the prior-filed application does not provide support for wherein the behavioral health treatment ecosystem extends to a Virtual Medical Home instance. Examiner cannot find disclosure for this claimed feature in the prior filed applications. For claim 8, the prior-filed application does not provide support for a therapy module and familial/societal module. Examiner cannot find disclosure for these claimed modules in the prior filed applications. For claim 9, the prior-filed application does not provide support for wherein the at least one therapy module is selected from a group of (a medical therapy module, an occupational therapy module, a speech-language-pathology module, or a psychological therapy module). Examiner cannot find disclosure for these claimed modules in the prior filed applications. For claim 10, the prior-filed application does not provide support for a patient cluster data set that is correlated, via a processor, to an AI predicted outcome related to a recommended behavioral health treatment. Examiner cannot find disclosure for this claimed feature in the prior filed applications. For claim 11, the prior-filed application does not provide support for wherein, the predicted outcome is correlated across a cluster of patent treatment data. Examiner cannot find disclosure for this claimed feature in the prior filed applications. For claim 12, the prior-filed application does not provide support for wherein the predicted outcome is used to adjust a patient's dosage in real-time. Examiner cannot find disclosure for this claimed feature in the prior filed applications.
Accordingly, claims 2-3 and 8-12 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1602. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1600. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1402” has been used to designate both the Clinical Data User Interface and the charting interface. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-12).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
A computer-implemented automated monitoring and behavioral health treatment recommendation method comprising:
receiving a set of data from a patient sensor and a set of data from a caregiver for a patient;
computing, via a processor, a behavioral health dosage for the patient;
correlating, via a processor, the behavioral health dosage to a corpus of behavioral health dosage treatment data;
and calibrating the behavioral health dosage, via processor; in light of a cohort of similar patient behavioral health dosages and;
measuring a progress metric towards a set treatment goal of the patient, via the processor.
These steps for calibrating treatment for a patient, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by a processor, nothing in the claim element the precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around managing autism or other behavioral and mental health conditions for a patient through calibrating treatment based on received data. This could be analogized to a psychologist or a therapist managing maladaptive behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claim 1, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of via a processor amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving a set of data from a patient sensor and a set of data from a caregiver for a patient amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving step performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of via a processor; e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving a set of data from a patient sensor and a set of data from a caregiver for a patient, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-12 reciting particular aspects of calibrating treatment for a patient such as
[Claim 2] receiving additional patient data from a behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module;
[Claim 3] wherein the behavioral health treatment ecosystem extends to a Virtual Medical Home instance;
[Claim 4] wherein the Virtual Medical Home instance further comprises a set of sensors that measure a patient's biometrics in real-time;
[Claim 5] wherein the patient's biometrics are correlated to the cohort of similar patient behavioral health dosages;
[Claim 6] wherein the patient's biometrics are captured by a wearable sensor;
[Claim 7] that based on the patient's real-time biometric measurements, a change in the patient's behavioral health dosages is recommended to a caregiver of the patient;
[Claim 8] receiving data from the behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module and at least one familial/societal module;
[Claim 9] wherein the at least one therapy module is selected from a group of (a medical therapy module, an occupational therapy module, a speech-language-pathology module, or a psychological therapy module);
[Claim 10] a patient cluster data set that is correlated, via a processor, to an AI predicted outcome related to a recommended behavioral health treatment;
[Claim 11] wherein, the predicted outcome is correlated across a cluster of patent treatment data;
[Claim 12] wherein the predicted outcome is used to adjust a patient's dosage in real-time;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since the identified limitations merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.)
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 8-10 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 3 (to a Virtual Medical Home instance), claim 4 (wherein the Virtual Medical Home instance further comprises a set of sensors that measure a patient's biometrics in real-time), claim 6 (by a wearable sensor), claim 8 (from at least one therapy module and at least one familial/societal module), claim 9 (wherein the at least one therapy module is selected from a group of (a medical therapy module, an occupational therapy module, a speech-language-pathology module, or a psychological therapy module)), and claim 10 (via a processor) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 2 (receiving additional patient data from a behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module); and, claim 8 (receiving data from the behavioral health treatment ecosystem) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving step performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 3-4, 6, and 8-10 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0040] which provides a list of various off-the-shelf computing devices, [0109] which provides a list of various off-the-shelf processors, [0119] which provides examples of various drivers, and [0126] which provides examples of output components and input components. Dependent claims 2 & 8 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarton et al. (US20050112534A1) in view of Fischer et al. (US20190108770A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCarton discloses receiving […] and a set of data from a caregiver for a patient ([0143] “Copies of all medical, educational, and other records are kept on file at the school, and are considered as the child's Individualized Education Program is created.”)
computing, via a processor, a behavioral health dosage for the patient ([0022] “Furthermore, an individualized education plan directed to improving the subject's baseline level of functioning in an ASD symptom may also be prepared” [0024] “In the above methods, the primary and secondary interaction may have a duration of about one hour and 15 minutes, respectively”)
correlating, […], the behavioral health dosage to a corpus of behavioral health dosage treatment data ([0095] “The decision to alter or maintain a plan is made after retrieving individual information about the subject from an electronic database […] an indication of continual improvement in any one or more of various characteristics based on reference to data in the database indicates that present methods should be maintained.”)
and calibrating the behavioral health dosage, […] ([0144] “If the child is not responding to methods being used, based in part via reference to a database, the plan is modified until the desired outcome is achieved.”)
in light of a cohort of similar patient behavioral health dosages and ([0146] “Children begin their day at the program at 8:45 a.m. and are dismissed at 2:45 p.m (see, e.g., Example 2). Each child spends the majority of his or her day in a classroom with three other children of comparable skills and abilities, and four professionals. The children spend an hour working one-on-one with a behavioral or speech and language specialist on objectives set out in their daily educational program.”)
measuring a progress metric towards a set treatment goal of the patient, […] ([0144] “Instructors develop a baseline of skills for the student to establish goals and measure progress.”)
McCarton does not explicitly disclose however Fischer teaches receiving a set of data from a patient sensor ([0068] “Motion sensing input device such as the Microsoft Kinect, stereo cameras, or other tracking systems can be used as motion sensing sensors to monitor children behavior.”)
[…] via a processor […] ([0107] “Method steps of the invention may be performed by a computer processor”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton receiving a set of data from a patient sensor; and, via a processor as taught by Fischer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, McCarton discloses receiving additional patient data from a behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module ([0134] “The ADOS provides data from direct observation of the subject's behavior. […] The ADOS comprises four modules”)
Regarding claim 3, McCarton does not explicitly disclose however Fischer teaches wherein the behavioral health treatment ecosystem extends to a Virtual Medical Home instance ([0084] “In a further embodiment, multiple systems may interact in an online environment and multiple children may interact with a combination of each other, clinicians, their robot, and other virtual entities.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton a Virtual Medical Home instance as taught by Fischer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, McCarton does not explicitly disclose however Fischer teaches wherein the Virtual Medical Home instance further comprises a set of sensors that measure a patient's biometrics in real-time ([0058] “In a teleoperation mode, a therapist, teacher, parent, or other user (either at a remote site or with the child) could observe the child's behavior through cameras and operate a joystick to control robot movement. […] the robot can further be used as a diagnosis tool to record children's behavior” [0089] “In one embodiment, software tracks the location and orientation of a child's head with respect to camera's in the eyes of a robot […] Gaze direction can be inferred from the shown coordinate frame. In the present embodiment, it allows highly robust and real-time face tracking and provides head position and orientation coordinates per frame of video.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton the Virtual Medical Home instance further comprising a set of sensors that measure a patient's biometrics in real-time as taught by Fischer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, McCarton discloses wherein the patient's biometrics are correlated to the cohort of similar patient behavioral health dosages ([0017] “For example, such symptoms may comprise behavioral control, attention, cognitive skills, imitation of motor activities, sensory integration training, visual spatial skills, speech and language training comprising acquisition of expressive and receptive language skills, playing, following classroom routines, dressing, eating, improving oral motor skills, self-regulation, gross and/or fine motor skills training, or a combination thereof.” [0022] “In the above methods, the subject may be placed in a peer group based on the determination of the strengths and weaknesses of an ASD symptom. […] Each member of the peer group may also have a comparable level of functioning in an ASD symptom.” [0108] “the practice of ABA-type therapy followed by group activities”)
Regarding claim 6, McCarton does not explicitly disclose however Fischer teaches wherein the patient's biometrics are captured by a wearable sensor ([0066] “The robot can be configured with various sensors, e.g. contact type or non-contact type electrocardiography sensor, to monitor vital life signs and report to clinician center.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton the patient's biometrics are captured by a wearable sensor as taught by Fischer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, McCarton discloses receiving data from the behavioral health treatment ecosystem using a set of data from at least one therapy module and at least one familial/societal module ([0146] “The children spend an hour working one-on-one with a behavioral or speech and language specialist on objectives set out in their daily educational program. Each hour is followed by a 15-minute group activity, which contributes to the development of language and social skills.” [0168] “The program facilities further incorporate a computer center for instructors, to facilitate the daily data entry and information exchange that is crucial to our on-going assessment process.”)
Regarding claim 9, McCarton discloses wherein the at least one therapy module is selected from a group of (a medical therapy module, an occupational therapy module, a speech-language-pathology module, or a psychological therapy module) ([0146] “The children spend an hour working one-on-one with a behavioral or speech and language specialist on objectives set out in their daily educational program.”)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarton et al. (US20050112534A1) in view of Fischer et al. (US20190108770A1) and further in view of Sahin (US20190015033A1).
Regarding claim 7, McCarton in view of Fischer does not explicitly disclose however Sahin teaches that based on the patient's real-time biometric measurements, a change in the patient's behavioral health dosages is recommended to a caregiver of the patient ([0259] “In some implementations, the individual 102 uses the wearable data collection device 104 in an ongoing manner to aid in managing symptoms and/or evaluating interventions or treatments related to behaviors identified through the algorithms 1110.” [0050] “The wearable data collection device 104 may interface with one or more peripheral devices, in some embodiments, to collect the physiological data.” [0193] “in some implementations, emotional and physiological states may be derived from the individual's physiological data” [0194] “In some implementations, a caregiver is alerted to the likelihood of an impending atypical behavioral episode. […] Furthermore, the caregiver may be prompted with recommendations of measures to take to best prevent, redirect, and/or minimize the atypical behavioral episode.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton and Fischer that based on the patient's real-time biometric measurements, a change in the patient's behavioral health dosages is recommended to a caregiver of the patient as taught by Sahin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarton et al. (US20050112534A1) in view of Fischer et al. (US20190108770A1) and further in view of Hahn et al. (US20220044823A1).
Regarding claim 10, McCarton in view of Fischer does not explicitly disclose however Hahn teaches a patient cluster data set that is correlated, via a processor, to an AI predicted outcome related to a recommended behavioral health treatment ([0010] “In some embodiments, the system includes at least one processor” [0032] “In some embodiments, one or more computer programs 104 are configured to perform a treatment effect regression analysis on changes in adaptive behavior scores and the metabolic profiles of the plurality of patients. In some embodiments, the treatment effect regression analysis includes use of a kernel partial least squares algorithm. As a result, one or more computer programs 104 are configured to predict an adaptive behavior score change for a target patient undergoing at least one of the one or more ASD treatments.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton and Fischer a patient cluster data set that is correlated, via a processor, to an AI predicted outcome related to a recommended behavioral health treatment as taught by Hahn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, McCarton in view of Fischer does not explicitly disclose however Hahn teaches wherein, the predicted outcome is correlated across a cluster of patent treatment data ([0036] “At 206A, a change from the pre-treatment discriminant score to the post-treatment discriminant score is identified to quantify a treatment effect on metabolic profiles of the plurality of patients.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton and Fischer the predicted outcome that is correlated across a cluster of patent treatment data as taught by Hahn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, McCarton in view of Fischer does not explicitly disclose however Hahn teaches wherein the predicted outcome is used to adjust a patient's dosage in real-time ([0061] “The use of regression of changes in adaptive behavior and changes in biochemical measurements offers insight into the metabolic and behavioral improvements resulting from clinical treatment of individuals with ASD and allow care providers to monitor and adjust treatment of these individuals accordingly.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of McCarton and Fischer the predicted outcome is used to adjust a patient's dosage in real-time as taught by Hahn since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Wood, J. J., Sze Wood, K., Chuen Cho, A., Rosenau, K. A., Cornejo Guevara, M., Galán, C., ... & Hellemann, G. (2021). Modular cognitive behavioral therapy for autism-related symptoms in children: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 89(2), 110.
This reference is relevant because it discloses performing modular cognitive behavioral therapy for autism-related symptoms in children.
US20190333629A1
This reference is relevant because it has significant disclosure on diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687