DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the response filed on 11/20/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 7-8 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-8 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 7 recites:
7. A system for providing a digital virtual sponsor to facilitate addiction recovery comprising:
a digital assistant platform that allows communication with a person struggling with addiction using natural language conversations;
a knowledge base containing information about resources, activities, and recovery plans to help the person struggling with addiction;
a processor to execute a program; and
a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, the processor performs processes of,
receiving a first inquiry from a user using the digital assistant platform;
analyzing the first inquiry to determine a response category using a natural language machine learning model;
determining at least one appropriate response to the first inquiry as part of a recovery plan based on a scripted interaction associated with the response category and a machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses using the knowledge base;
providing the at least one response to the first inquiry to the user using the digital assistant platform;
updating the knowledge base with information associated with the determined provided at least one response to the first inquiry;
after receiving a second inquiry from the user using the digital assistant platform, retraining the machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses to determine at least one response to the second inquiry on a basis of the updated knowledge base, and
outputting the determined at least one response to the second inquiry as a part of the recovery plan by using the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses, wherein
the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses facilitates the determination of the at least one response to the second inquiry that is personalized to the user, based on a result of analyzing information directed to a plurality of previous interactions with the user and the knowledge base comprising information on actual experiences of a plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction,
the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses further determines the at least one response to the second inquiry by:
dividing contents of the second inquiry into a plurality of tokens corresponding to a plurality of words;
converting each of the plurality of tokens associated with one of the plurality of words into a plurality of vectors;
comparing the plurality of vectors of the corresponding plurality of tokens with the updated knowledge base to determine an intent of the second inquiry of the person; and
searching for the determined at last one response to the second inquiry based on the determined intent of the second inquiry and the updated knowledge base,
the plurality of previous interactions with the user comprises the received first inquiry and the determined provided at least one response to the first inquiry,
the result of analyzing information used to determine the at least one response to the second inquiry is further based on a determined match of a same attribute between the plurality of previous interactions with the user and the information on actual experiences of the plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction, and
the outputted at least one response to the second inquiry is tailored to the user and based on the information on actual experiences of the plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction to optimize success of the recovery plan.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”. The limitations including receiving inquiry data from a user, analyzing the inquiry data, determining a response, providing the response to the user using a model, updating a knowledge base, receiving a second inquiry from a user, outputting another response to the user using a model, where the output is tailored to the person and based on information from other users are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations including using a machine learning model trained with recovery plan responses, retraining the model using an updated knowledge base, wherein the trained model provides a response by analyzing data, tokenizing data into vectors, comparing the vectors to determine an intent, and searching for a response based on the determined intent, wherein the analyzed data is determined based on a match of attribute data constitutes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations because they amount to acts of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. For example, the limitations of tokenizing data into vectors and comparing vectored data utilize a machine learning model to compare numerical vectors, or values, for each token for the purposes of matching relevant data.
Accordingly, independent claim 7 and analogous independent claim 1 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-6 & 8 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2 & 8recites determining and issuing a digital reward to a user; claim 3 recites the type of inquiry received, claim 5 recites a set of interactive dialog uses used to interact with the user. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 7 and analogous independent claim 1, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
7. A system for providing a digital virtual sponsor to facilitate addiction recovery comprising:
a digital assistant platform that allows communication with a person struggling with addiction using natural language conversations;
a knowledge base containing information about resources, activities, and recovery plans to help the person struggling with addiction;
a processor to execute a program; and
a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, the processor performs processes of,
receiving a first inquiry from a user using the digital assistant platform;
analyzing the first inquiry to determine a response category using a natural language machine learning model;
determining at least one appropriate response to the first inquiry as part of a recovery plan based on a scripted interaction associated with the response category and a machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses using the knowledge base;
providing the at least one response to the first inquiry to the user using the digital assistant platform;
updating the knowledge base with information associated with the determined provided at least one response to the first inquiry;
after receiving a second inquiry from the user using the digital assistant platform, retraining the machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses to determine at least one response to the second inquiry on a basis of the updated knowledge base, and
outputting the determined at least one response to the second inquiry as a part of the recovery plan by using the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses, wherein
the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses facilitates the determination of the at least one response to the second inquiry that is personalized to the user, based on a result of analyzing information directed to a plurality of previous interactions with the user and the knowledge base comprising information on actual experiences of a plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction,
the retrained machine learning model trained for recovery plan responses further determines the at least one response to the second inquiry by:
dividing contents of the second inquiry into a plurality of tokens corresponding to a plurality of words;
converting each of the plurality of tokens associated with one of the plurality of words into a plurality of vectors;
comparing the plurality of vectors of the corresponding plurality of tokens with the updated knowledge base to determine an intent of the second inquiry of the person; and
searching for the determined at last one response to the second inquiry based on the determined intent of the second inquiry and the updated knowledge base,
the plurality of previous interactions with the user comprises the received first inquiry and the determined provided at least one response to the first inquiry,
the result of analyzing information used to determine the at least one response to the second inquiry is further based on a determined match of a same attribute between the plurality of previous interactions with the user and the information on actual experiences of the plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction, and
the outputted at least one response to the second inquiry is tailored to the user and based on the information on actual experiences of the plurality of other persons with successful recovery from addiction to optimize success of the recovery plan.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the digital assistant platform, knowledge base, processor, memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 7 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 4 and 6: These claims recite using natural language processing to analyze inquiry data and using a machine learning model to update interaction data with a user, however, these limitations do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the digital assistant platform, knowledge base, processor, memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Shriberg (US20200118458) teaches systems and methods that can more accurately and effectively assess, screen, estimate, and/or monitor the mental state of human subjects, when compared to conventional mental health assessment tools. In one aspect, a method for assessing a mental state of a subject in a single session or over multiple different sessions is provided.
Williams (US20210202067) teaches various exemplary embodiments of systems and methods that utilize the location and context of an addict and other resources to a) preempt trigger and/or high risk relapse situations, b) prevent relapse in high risk situations, and/or c) respond to, manage, and recovery from a relapse when they do occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-10 regarding claims 1-8 being rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that:
The AI platform and machine learning models provide an improvement to computer technologies and existing technologies for addiction recovery because they are more efficient and tailored to the person.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the purported improvements argued by Applicant are improvements in the abstract idea itself and not an improvement to technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the improvements of invention allow for a significant improvement in the success rate of persons enrolled in addiction recovery programs which the Examiner interprets as an improvement to the abstract idea of addiction recovery programs. The specification fails to provide any description as to how the limitations of tokenizing content and converting data into vectors amounts to a technical improvement to the field of machine learning. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krishnamurti (US 20200051697) teaches to systems and methods for a structured medical data classification system for monitoring and for monitoring and remediating treatment risks. Preston (US20180182472) teaches to tracking, assessing and predicting human behavioral disorders in real time through a mobile device. Williams (US20180176727) teaches to using location, context, and/or one or more communication networks for monitoring for, preempting, and/or mitigating pre-identified behavior.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619