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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04 March 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, no copy or explanation of relevance is provided for non-patent literature documents cite no. 1 and 9. There is an unknown single page document in the file wrapper labeled as non-patent literature that includes an image that is so small and grainy as to be unintelligible. Additionally, in the copy of non-patent literature document cite no. 5, two of the three pages are so blurry as to be illegible and the document appears to be missing pages.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites both “AI-ML model” and “AI/ML model”. Uniformity is recommended.
The specification recites multiple abbreviations. The first instance of an abbreviation should be accompanied by the fully written term. However, there are abbreviations in the specification that are not accompanied by the fully written. A non-limiting example is “API”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms “Flutter”, “Laravel”, “MySQL”, “Intel Core”, “Seagate”, “Barracuda”, “Hitachi”, and “Nexsan” each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 9 and 18 are missing an “s” to make the singular term “drawing” plural to recite “a plurality of drawings”.
Each of claims 10 and 19 are missing an “s” to make the singular term “recommendation” plural to recite “a plurality of pre-stored recommendations”.
Dependent claims 11 and 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the image" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 13-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, each of these claims recites “receiving at least one of: the provided drawing and user data while providing the image”. This includes an embodiment when the provided drawing is not received yet the converting the received drawing and pre-processing the received drawing steps are still claimed to be performed. It is unclear how the converting and pre-processing steps are performed in that embodiment when the provided drawing is not received. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, it is unclear what “a heatmap of the user while providing the drawing” represents. In particular, it is unclear what information the heatmap is created from and is displaying about the user. The disclosure does not aid understanding as it merely recites similar language as the claim without any description. See, for example, at least para. 11 and 35 of the specification. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 6, 7, and 16 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “technique of drawing of the user” in each of claims 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “technique of drawing of the user” 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. See, for example, at least para. 11 and 36 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims.
The term “decisiveness of the user” in each of claims 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “decisiveness of the user” 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. See, for example, at least para. 11 and 36 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “identify the state of mind of the user based on at least one of: the received user data, the identified one or more shapes, and the identified one or more colors by employing one or more Machine Learning (ML) models” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. Not only is the disclosure silent regarding any meaningful description for “a state of mind of the user”, the disclosure is particularly silent regarding any meaningful description for determining a state of mind of the user other than the function is performed by one or more ML models. For instance, the specification repeats multiple times that a state of mind of the user is determined and loosely discusses determining feelings or emotions with para. 9 of the specification reciting that “the model works as an emotion AI model or artificial emotional intelligence model which is trained to recognize an individual’s feelings or emotions behind a picture drawn”. Furthermore, the one or more ML models are insufficiently disclosed. For instance, para. 13 of the specification generically recites that they are “trained by annotating a plurality of drawings with known shapes and colors and attributing patterns of state of mind with combinations of colors and shapes”. Similar language is found in para. 39 of the specification while para. 38 recites that the ML may include a deep learning framework such a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) without any further description. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any parameters or weighting associated with such models, other than they may be supervised, so that the models may perform the claimed function. In summary, the one or models are treated as a black box without any meaningful description of the algorithm itself. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “receiving at least one of:… user data while providing the image” in claims 1 and 12 and “wherein the user data while providing the drawing corresponds to at least one of:… one or more user actions…” in claims 5 and 15 being further limited by “wherein the one or more user actions include at least one of:… technique of drawing of the user, and decisiveness of the user when providing the drawing” in claims 7 and 16 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 11 and 36 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any description for performing the claimed function nor what “technique of drawing of the user” and “decisiveness of the user when providing the drawing” entail.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the interpretation system further determines one or more recommendations from a plurality of pre-stored recommendation based on the identified state of mind of the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The disclosure merely recites that these steps are performed in results-based language without providing any meaningful descriptions of the steps, algorithms, calculations necessary for performing the claimed functionality. In addition to the insufficiency of the written description for identifying a state of mind of the user, it is equally insufficient for determining one or more recommendations based on the identified state of mind of the user. See, for example, at least para. 13, 15, 33 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any description for performing the claimed function. Dependent claims 11 and 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and a product which fall under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A processing unit for identifying state of mind of a user, the processing unit comprising:
a mobile application to facilitate the user to provide a drawing drawn by the user;
a backend system to:
receive at least one of: the provided drawing and user data while providing the image; and
convert the received drawing into a machine understandable format;
an interpretation system to:
pre-process the received drawing to identify at least one of: one or more shapes and one or more colors in the received drawing; and
identify the state of mind of the user based on at least one of: the received user data, the identified one or more shapes, and the identified one or more colors by employing one or more Machine Learning (ML) models.
Independent claim 12 recites:
A method for identifying state of mind of a user, the method comprising:
facilitating the user to provide a drawing drawn by the user;
receiving at least one of: the provided drawing and user data while providing the image;
converting the received drawing into a machine understandable format;
pre-processing the received drawing to identify at least one of: one or more shapes and one or more colors in the received drawing; and
identifying the state of mind of the user based on at least one of: the received user data, the identified one or more shapes, and the identified one or more colors by employing one or more Machine Learning (ML) models.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis typically performed as a mentor or therapist review the art manually to analyze and understand the state of mind of the user. Similarly, the receiving, pre-processing, and identifying steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a processing unit comprising a mobile application, a backend system, and an interpretation system (claim 1); converting the received drawing into a machine understandable format (claims 1 and 12); employing one or more Machine (ML) models (claims 1 and 12); a user interface (claims 2 and 13), and an interpretation button (claims 8 and 17). Although the claims recite the elements identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by at least Fig. 1-2B and 5 which illustrates the components as non-descript black boxes or stock images while Fig. 4A-4F illustrate that the claimed invention is focused on a software application. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 33, 34, 38, 39, and 49-61 of the specification which indicate that the claimed invention is merely implementing a historically mental and manual process on a computer via a software application. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system as the computer system and its elements are merely recited to be performing the steps. For instance, at least the receiving and converting steps do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because they are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) since the claims merely recite the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these tasks. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, para. 49 of the specification explicitly identifies that the steps of the method are not in any particular order. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. For instance, claims 10 and 19 merely broadly recite determining one or more recommendations based on the identified state of mind of the user and is thus not limited in any way to any particular treatment or prophylaxis for any disease or medical condition. Additionally, the additional elements do not apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that is implementation with a computer. For instance, the converting step and mere use of one or more ML models are merely the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented in the technology, itself. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, the mere inclusion of generically recited one or more ML models conventionally configured to perform their conventional data processing functions merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2018/0075198, hereinafter referred to as Hwang).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hwang teaches a processing unit (claim 1) and a method (claim 12) for identifying state of mind of a user, the method comprising:
facilitating the user to provide a drawing drawn by the user (Hwang, Fig. 1, Drawing 30);
receiving at least one of: the provided drawing and user data while providing the image (Hwang, Fig. 1, Drawing 30);
converting the received drawing into a machine understandable format (Hwang, Fig. 2, Digitizing a drawing as part of S100);
pre-processing the received drawing to identify at least one of: one or more shapes and one or more colors in the received drawing (Hwang, Fig. 2, determining drawing characteristics, the drawing characteristics including color, objects, location as part of S100); and
identifying the state of mind of the user based on at least one of: the received user data, the identified one or more shapes, and the identified one or more colors by employing one or more Machine Learning (ML) models (Hwang, Fig. 2, Analyzing the color characteristics S101 - Analyzing the mood characteristics S106, Performing Automatically interpreting the color, object, location, time and mood characteristics to determine a mental state of the user S107; para. 35, “The state of assessment module extracts patterns of behavior from the machine learning data and determines the mental state of the user based on the drawing analysis trained through historical data with correct tags.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, wherein the user provides the drawing by at least one of: inputting a pre-drawn image (Hwang, para. 13, “A drawing 30 is scanned and input into the drawing analyzer 12 for analysis.”), and drawing an image on a user interface by selection of one or more shapes and colors.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 14, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 2 and the method of claim 13, wherein the pre-processing includes at least one of: applying image processing on the received drawing to identify at least one of: one or more shapes and one or more colors (Hwang, Fig. 2, digitizing a drawing and determining drawing characteristics, the drawing characteristics including color, objects, location S100), and identifying one or more codes associated with the selected one or more shapes and colors to draw the image (Hwang, para. 14, “The characteristics include data relating to color, objects, location, placement and composition, lines, marks, weight, style, people, faces, flowers, florals, geometric shapes, random abstract shapes, houses, windows, 3D boxes, ladders, arrows, walls, stars and hearts.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, wherein the user data while providing the drawing corresponds to at least one of: a user input of current feeling, one or more user actions, a video capturing actions of the user while providing the drawing (Hwang, Fig. 2, Performing a video analysis of the user while making the drawing to determine user characteristics, the user characteristics including time characteristics and mood characteristics S104. This is construed as teaching all three of these alternatives, but not a heatmap.), and a heatmap of the user while providing the drawing.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 5, wherein the current feeling includes at least one of: a heavy feeling and a light feeling (Hwang does not need to teach this limitation as it is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 5, wherein the one or more user actions include at least one of: sequence of actions of the user while providing the drawing, technique of drawing of the user, and decisiveness of the user when providing the drawing (Hwang, Fig. 2, Performing a video analysis of the user while making the drawing to determine user characteristics, the user characteristics including time characteristics and mood characteristics S104. This video analysis is construed as teaching all three of the user action alternatives.).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang teaches the method of claim 15,
wherein the current feeling includes at least one of: a heavy feeling and a light feeling (Hwang does not need to teach this limitation as it is claimed in the alternative); and
wherein the one or more user actions include at least one of: sequence of actions of the user while providing the drawing, technique of drawing of the user, and decisiveness of the user when providing the drawing (Hwang, Fig. 2, Performing a video analysis of the user while making the drawing to determine user characteristics, the user characteristics including time characteristics and mood characteristics S104. This video analysis is construed as teaching all three of the user action alternatives.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more ML models are trained by:
annotating a plurality of drawing with known shapes and colors; and
attributing patterns of state of mind with combinations of colors and shapes (Hwang, para. 35, “historical data 50 about the drawings and the context of the drawings is input to a machine learning module 46 to enable learning about the user's development patterns… The state of assessment module 38 extracts patterns of behavior from the machine learning data and determines the mental state of the user based on the drawing analysis trained through historical data with correct tags.”).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, further comprises determining one or more recommendations from a plurality of pre-stored recommendation based on the identified state of mind of the user (Hwang, Fig. 1, Actions 40, Machine Learning Knowledge Base Actions 52; Fig. 2, Selecting a user action based on the determined mental state of the user S108; para. 7, “selecting an ameliorating action based on the determined mental state of the user”; para. 12, “selecting an ameliorating action such as therapeutic treatment.”).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 10 and the method of claim 19, further comprises rendering at least one of: the identified state of mind of the user and the determined one or more recommendations to the user (Hwang, para. 21, “output the selected action at 40”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claims 1 and 12 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Hwang teaches the processing unit of claim 1 and the method of claim 12.
Hwang does not explicitly teach facilitating the user to initiate identification of the state of mind by selection of an interpretation button.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hwang to include facilitating the user to initiate identification of the state of mind by selection of an interpretation button because there are only a finite number of ways to initiate the computer-implemented process with a start button (claimed as an interpretation button) being the most conventional and Applicant has not disclosed that an interpretation button solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond its conventional use, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be able to contemplate the optimal means to initiate such a computer-implemented process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (CN 108392213 B) discloses psychological analysis of a person’s drawings using machine learning.
Jiyoung Community (KR 102240930 B1) discloses using artificial intelligence to automate an art psychological examination wherein the subject either draws the art directly into the system or scans the drawing in.
He (CN 115394395 A) discloses psychological evaluation and intervention based on analyzing a painting or drawing from a subject using artificial intelligence.
Jang (US 2024/0277272) discloses using artificial intelligence to analyze a user’s psychological state from a scribble or drawing from the user on an input screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715