DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to amendments filed on 09/24/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination; Claims 1,11 and 20 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a method(process).
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
“A method of automatically generating therapy notes for a therapy session of a therapy patient, comprising: obtaining objective sensor data collected by one or more sensors during the therapy session; obtaining subjective therapy session data associated with subjective impressions from a therapist related to the therapy session of the therapy patient; generating the therapy notes based on the objective sensor data and the subjective therapy session data, wherein generating the therapy notes includes applying the objective sensor data and the subjective therapy session data to a language model wherein the language model is configured to: one or more of confirm, correct, enhance, and validate the subjective impressions of the therapist using the objective sensor data: and generate the therapy notes based at least in part on the one or more of confirmed, corrected, enhanced, and validated subjective impressions of the therapist; and outputting the therapy notes to at least one entity, wherein the therapy notes include details based on the objective sensor data and the subjective therapy session..”
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to collecting objective data from patient (e.g. age, weight, height etc. ) and subjective data from therapist (e.g. therapist impressions) . The reports are created based on these two collected information, and therapist can review these reports. Any data (patient’s data) can be checked, enhanced or corrected and can be validated by a therapist and impressions/opinions can be written on the paper. All of this can be done on paper.
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Automatically generating (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
obtaining objective sensor data (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
sensors (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
sensor data (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
language model (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the claim limitation,“ obtaining objective sensor data” the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 1, and add the additional elements of “virtual reality (VR)”, “virtual environment”, “virtual action”, “VR headset”, “audio notes”, “external electronic health record”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. In addition it adds the additional elements of “system”, “processor”, “memory”, “processor-readable code”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 12-20 further narrows the abstract idea of claim 11, and are rejected under the same basis as claims 2-10.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, and adds the additional elements of “computer-based tool”, “non-transitory computer readable media”, “processor”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art. The claim amendments overcome the prior arts of record, and arguments are persuasive. Specifically, the prior arts don’t explicitly teach “wherein the language model is configured to: one or more of confirm, correct, enhance, and validate the subjective impressions of the therapist using the objective sensor data; and generate the therapy notes based at least in part on the one or more of confirmed, corrected, enhanced, and validated subjective impressions of the therapist” in context of the claimed invention. Sletten (US 20230157631 A1) does teach “one or more of confirm, correct, enhance, and validate the subjective impressions of the therapist using the objective sensor data.”
“[0127] As objective data is not always accurate, processor 112 may further be configured to receive subjective data as a user confirmation of the accuracy of the objective data received at step 301. Furthermore, it may be desirable to determine whether there is a mismatch between subjective and objective data. At step 305, processor 112 executing subjective data module 163 receives subjective data, which may include user responses entered via user I/O 114 in response to questions or prompts presented by device 110. Subjective data may include the time the user reports going to sleep or waking up, how many times a user reports waking up during sleep, how much caffeine a user reports consuming, and/or a reported mood of the user, for example.” Thus, it explicitly teaches validating (checking mismatch) between subjective data and objective data; however, it doesn’t teach generating the therapy notes based on such validation. Lipton (US 20220375605 A1) teaches using machine learning to automatically generate SOAP notes from transcripts.
“[0007] Additionally, manual generation of SOAP notes is a tedious and time consuming process and can take up a sizable porting of the physician's workday. Automated generation of a SOAP note from every patient visit can greatly improve the time and efficiency of physicians. The techniques described herein provide machine learning approaches that leverage transcripts of conversations that take place between physicians and patients during a visit, to automatically generate structured SOAP notes. Techniques for automated generation of SOAP notes provided herein can improve the efficiency of EHR documentation.” Though the limitation could potentially be addressed individually, it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to reach the claimed invention without improper hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 095 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks - 35 USC § 101
In remarks, Pg. 13, applicant contends: “therefore, where claims disclose a specific and particular implementation, such as a particular manner of implementing a generic idea that might have existed prior to the invention, which results in an improved efficiency of using the computer system (which the Core Wireless court characterized as an improvement to a computer's functionality), the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the claims are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is the case with the present claims.”
Applicant merely makes a conclusory statement without proving any explanation as to how the instant claimed invention provides "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." M.P.E.P. §2106.04(d)(I).” The claimed invention is merely automating the process of taking therapy notes, which could be done on paper using pen. The instant specification, makes it clear that the use of language model to generate therapy notes is merely at apply it level.
“[0054] In embodiments, model 120 may include or represent one or more AI-based models configured to generate therapy notes when applied to content (e.g., therapy session data). Model 120 may represent any model, or any type of model that is configured to generate therapy notes (e.g., based on a particular format) based on a language-based input. For example, a language model may be configured to intake therapy session data and to generate therapy notes in a particular format based on the therapy session data.”
In remarks, Pg. 13-15, applicant contends: “as described in the Specification, there are significant technical problems with conventional systems for generating therapy notes. For example, these systems often create notes long after a therapy session, leading to forgotten details. See Specification at [0005]. Even more, these notes are based entirely on the therapist's subjective impressions, which limits their accuracy, effectiveness, and usefulness. See Specification at [0007]. The delay and subjectivity make it difficult, if not impossible, to reliably track patient progress or validate the effectiveness of a therapy plan. Conventional system that merely format a therapist's transcript fail to solve this core technical problem, as they still rely on the same flawed, delayed and subjective input.
The present claims, as amended, solve this technical problem with a specific, unconventional technical solution.”
The above stated problems itself are abstract idea, as one can take notes on paper using pen in real time; furthermore looking at objective data, one can verify the subjective impression.
Also, see response to first argument as to why the use of model doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Remarks - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7-10 of remarks, filed on 09/24/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections with regard to prior arts has been withdrawn.
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00am - 5:00 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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686