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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 11/17/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim term “embodied conversational agent” is indefinite because the term is not explicitly defined in the claim. The Applicant’s is reminded that claim terminology is given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations form the Specification; see MPEP 2111.01. Accordingly, the Applicant is kindly requested to define “embodied conversational agent” in the claim using language supported in the Specification. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as a computer program configured to present an avatar for interviewing an interviewee.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 2.
Further regarding claim 4, the term “a form of non-human agent” is indefinite, as it is unclear what this refers to. In view of the BRI noted in the above rejection, the “embodied conversational agent” is a software program, so naturally that would be ‘non-human’. Still further, the claim term “may easily interact” is also rejected as indefinite, because: 1) ‘may’ is not a positive recitation, making it unclear as to whether limitations following ‘may’ are positively required by the claim; and 2) ‘easily interact’ is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, in which ‘easily’ is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step (1): Independent Claim 1 recites a distributed system; and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
Under Step 2(a) prong 1:
Regarding independent claim 1, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a man using pen and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 1 recites: “wherein the at least one state assessment server system is configured to identify at least one pattern within the stored data to predict the onset of a manic/depressive episode for the interviewee.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process that, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Under Step 2(a) prong 2:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recite: “system comprising: at least one human interface system, the at least one human interface system comprising sensors for generating interview data associated with exhibited attributes of the interviewee; at least one state assessment server system, the at least one state assessment server system comprising a database storing data generated during a plurality of interviews of a given interviewee at different times; a communication link permitting bi-directional communications between the at least one human interface system and the at least one state assessment server system”; but these features merely define the field of use of the current claim. These additional elements do not practically integrate the judicial exception because these elements do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Under Step 2b:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the: “human interface system”, “sensors”, “state assessment server system”, “database” and “communication link” amount to nothing more than devices for insignificant data gathering, and data communications. These features are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, is discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea of generating a treatment plan for ablation implementation.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, the limitations of claim 1 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publicover et al. US 2021/0390876 A1 (hereinafter “Pub”).
Regarding claim 1, Pub teaches a distributed system (Fig. 5) for conducting an automatic behavioral analysis for the assessment of the mental state of a human interviewee ([0095] system for simultaneous monitor and modulate emotional and cognitive environments of an individual), the system comprising:
at least one human interface system (human interaction entity/HIE 70, [0101-0106]), the at least one human interface system (HIE) comprising sensors for generating interview data associated with exhibited attributes of the interviewee ([0106] human interaction sensors, e.g. cameras, thermal sensors, motion sensors, accelerometer, microphones, heart rate sensors, etc. for observing an individual’s real-time responses);
at least one state assessment server system (interaction (remote) processor, see [0102, 0116-0117] and see Fig. 7: 78 comprising 77a-77c), the at least one state assessment server system comprising a database (database associated with 78 discussed in [0117]) storing data generated during a plurality of interviews of a given interviewee at different times ([0075-0079, 0087, 0252-0253, 0281-0282] and Figs. 3, 8-9, 10, 13 and 17, accumulate database(s) of at least one or more interviewees at different interaction instances);
a communication link (telecommunications protocol 76) permitting bi-directional communications between the at least one human interface system (70) and the at least one state assessment server system (78) (see [0116] and as shown in Fig. 7); and
wherein the at least one state assessment server system (78) is configured to identify at least one pattern within the stored data to predict the onset of a manic/depressive episode for the interviewee ([0271] anticipated outcome; [0285] predicting emotional outcome).
Regarding claim 2, Pub teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one human interface system (70) is configured to present an embodied conversational agent to the interviewee. ([0015] HIE is a virtual companion that converses/communicates with the interviewee; as shown in Fig. 5: 51a, 51b, 53a and 53b are HIE that communicates with interviewee/child 50, see [0095-0096])
Regarding claim 3, Pub teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the embodied conversational agent is based on the age of the interviewee. ([0302] based on the child’s age, also see [0095] and Fig. 5: 51a, 51b, 53a, 53b)
Regarding claim 4, Pub teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the embodied conversational agent takes a form of a non-human agent with which a child may easily interact. (see [0095] “machine-based interactions implemented by HIEs and one or more HIAs may include individual exchanges with such cartoon-like characters 51a, 51b, 53a, 53b and/or avatars that exhibit a “personality” that is familiar to the individual 50.”)
Regarding claim 5, Pub teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the interview data comprises data associated with one or more of the following interviewee attributes: kinesics; heart rate, vocalics; and/or oculometries. ([0106] sensors adapted for detecting all of kinesics, heart rate, vocalics, and oculometries, via motion sensors, heart rate sensor, microphone and EOG)
Regarding claim 6, Pub teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the human interface device is a tablet. ([0115: 1st sentence] HIE is a tablet)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaleal, III US 2016/0086500 A1 [0027] virtual avatar to convey fitness information, and monitor the user’s physiological activity
Dey et al. US 2019/0166070 A1 [0003] inte5ractive virtual agent that communicates with a user
Cavalli et al. US 2021/0338177 A1 [0076] visualized virtual agent, and physiological monitoring system adapted monitoring physio-psychological information of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
September 22, 2025