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 Objections
Claims 2-15, 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “method of Claim” which should be changed to “method of claim”. The letter “C” in the word “claim” does not need to be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 14 is/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 12 recites the limitations of “the symptoms” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same as “condition symptoms” previously introduced or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of “the symptoms” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same as “condition symptoms” previously introduced or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations of “the symptoms” in line 7. It is unclear if this is the same as “condition symptoms” previously introduced or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations of “the symptoms” in line 3. It is unclear if this is the same as “condition symptoms” previously introduced or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18-20 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 16 and 20 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “generating a set of psychophysiological markers representing correlations between the set of biosignals and the set of target emotions; - accessing a clinical assessment for the condition in the user, the clinical assessment representing condition symptoms in the user; and - deriving a set of correlations between the set of psychophysiological markers and the clinical assessment for the condition; and compiling sets of correlations, derived for the user population, into a condition model configured to predict risk of the condition symptoms based on psychophysiological markers; and during a second time period: accessing a first series of biosignals”, “identifying a first series of psychophysiological markers in the first series of biosignals, the first series of psychophysiological markers representing a first set of instances of the set of target emotions associated with the condition; based on the first series of psychophysiological markers and the condition model, calculating a first risk score of presentation of the condition symptoms by the first user”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 16 and 20 recite the additional limitations of “prompting the user”, “detecting a voice of the user”, “recording a set of biosignals via a wearable device worn by the user” (wearable device not being required in claim 20), “generating a notification”, “serving the notification”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending 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, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-7, 10-15, 18-19 depend on claims 1 and 16. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “set of sensors”, “mobile device”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-7, 10-16, 18-20 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 8, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,967,339. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed towards the same subject matter, differing only in minor limitations which are considered to be obvious. See analysis below.
1. A method
1. A method for tracking emotions of a user comprising:
prompting the user to orally recite a story associated with a set of target emotions associated with a condition
prompting to the user to recite a story describing a user experience and predicted to elicit a first target emotion;
during a first time period
during a first time period:
detecting a voice of the user
accessing an electronic recording of the user reciting the story;
ding a set of biosignals via a wearable device worn by the user
identifying a first timeseries of biosignal data in the electronic recording and comprising a first biosignal value;
accessing a clinical assessment for the condition in the user, the clinical assessment representing condition symptoms in the user
extracting a first timeseries of emotion markers from voice signals in the electronic recording, the first timeseries of emotion markers comprising a first emotion marker descriptive of a first instance of the first target emotion and derived from speech of the user detected in the electronic recording;
deriving a set of correlations between the set of psychophysiological markers and the clinical assessment for the condition
deriving a set of correlations between changes in biosignal data, represented in the first timeseries of biosignal data, and concurrent emotion markers in the first timeseries of emotion markers;
accessing a generic emotion model associated with the first target emotion;
derived for the user population, into a condition model configured to predict risk of the condition symptoms based on psychophysiological markers
based on the generic emotion model and the set of correlations, generating a user-specific emotion model configured to predict emotions of the user based on biosignals of the user; and
during a second time period
during a second time period, detecting a second instance of the first target emotion exhibited by the user based on a second timeseries of biosignal data and the user-specific emotion model; and
accessing a first series of biosignals collected by a first wearable device worn by a first user
based on detection of the second instance of the first target emotion:
generating a notification specifying an action protocol associated with the condition
retrieving an action protocol associated with the first target emotion, the action protocol defining a set of actions configured to alter an emotional state of the user; and
serving the notification to the first user
prompting the user to complete the action protocol.
8. The method of Claim 1:"
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein generating the notification specifying the action protocol associated with the condition comprises:
in response to detecting the second instance of the first target emotion based on the second timeseries of biosignal data, notifying the user of the second instance of the first target emotion;
accessing the action protocol associated with the set of target emotions, the action protocol comprising a series of coaching activities to alter an emotional state of the first user
retrieving a coaching protocol associated with the first target emotion, the coaching protocol comprising a set of coaching activities to alter an emotional state of the user; and
prompting the first user to complete the action protocol via a mobile device
prompting the user to complete the coaching activity at a mobile device.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 20180042542 granted to Cronin et al. (hereinafter “Cronin”) in view of U.S. Patent Number 9788777 issued to Knight (hereinafter “Knight”).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20. Cronin discloses a method (para 0004, “methods for remotely monitoring the emotional well-being of a patient”) comprising: during a first time period: o for each user in a user population (Cronin discloses a user in a population; however it is understood that the method could be repeated by various different users in the population): - orally recite a story associated with a set of target emotions associated with a condition (para 0004, 0030, 0031 “monitoring speech pattern data from the speech sensor;”; it is understood that any speech would include a set of emotions which can be labeled as target emotions);- in response to detecting a voice of the user, recording a set of biosignals via a wearable device worn by the user (para 0030 “collect body sensor data”); - generating a set of psychophysiological markers representing correlations between the set of biosignals and the set of target emotions (para 0004, 0005, 0034 “correlating speech patterns and other audio data with one or more additional sensor readings from the body sensors to detect poor emotional well-being); - accessing a clinical assessment for the condition in the user, the clinical assessment representing condition symptoms in the user (para 0005, etc. “databases having a plurality of emotional well-being alerts”); and - deriving a set of correlations between the set of psychophysiological markers and the clinical assessment for the condition (para 0005, etc., “compare the speech pattern data and/or the body sensor data to data from one or more databases”); and o compiling sets of correlations, derived for the user population, into a condition model configured to predict risk of the condition symptoms based on psychophysiological markers (para 0031, 0048 “alert matrix”); and * during a second time period (inherent within continuous operation of the method): o accessing a first series of biosignals collected by a first wearable device worn by a first user (para 0004-0006, etc., “body sensor data”);o identifying a first series of psychophysiological markers in the first series of biosignals, the first series of psychophysiological markers representing a first set of instances of the set of target emotions associated with the condition (para 0004-0005, 0031; identifying specific emotions within ‘the first period’); o based on the first series of psychophysiological markers and the condition model, calculating a first risk score of presentation of the condition symptoms by the first user (para 0055, the claim does not provide any details regarding the score, or outputting the score, under its BRI, any calculation would include a score/value); and o in response to the first risk score exceeding a threshold risk:- generating a notification specifying an action protocol associated with the condition; and serving the notification to the first user (para 0055 “a wearable system can analyze and compare all available data regardless of geolocation and only the thresholds for determining if an alert condition has occurred can vary among locations and the threshold data set can be the only information that is transmitted from network alert database”). Cronin fails to explicitly disclose emotion markers extracted from the voice recording.
Knight teaches prompt[ing] to the user to orally recite a story associated with a first target emotion (Col 10, lines 9-28 “The example training data 135 of the illustrated example of FIG. 1 provides initial metrics (classification data with known emotion(s) and/or mood(s) labeled therein) to be used by the classification engine 130 when creating the mood model.” Col. 27 lines 1-7. please note that the examiner understands that the recited story could be a pre-recorded data used to calibrate/classify the mood model.) a second instance of the first target emotion exhibited by the user based on the second timeseries of biosignal data and the first emotion model (Col 10, lines 9-28 “samples evoke multiple emotions at the same time….or only one emotion”; the examiner understands that the same emotion could be monitored to have been evoked multiple times as well as the “the training data indicates an intensity of a given emotion and/or mood.”). Using known audio that is known to elicit an emotion to the classification would allow the device to validate, modify and update the model since the known audio is known to elicit a certain emotion and/or mood (Col. 10, lines 48-59). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Cronin with the teachings of Knight to utilize emotion-specific classification that would provide the predictable result of validating the prediction against the semantic emotion/mood map and/or the emotion/mood classification stored in the mood reference database to determine if the mood model is functioning accurately (Col. 11, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 2. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1, wherein prompting the user to orally recite the story comprises prompting the user to orally recite the story associated with the set of target emotions associated with the condition comprising a generalized anxiety disorder, the set of target emotions comprising restlessness and fear (Cronin, para 0004 “a wearable device can accurately and quickly detect a variety of different emotional illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, and stress, thereby providing a caregiver with a more accurate assessment of patient emotional well-being”).
Regarding claim 8. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1:" wherein generating the notification specifying the action protocol associated with the condition comprises: o accessing the action protocol associated with the set of target emotions, the action protocol comprising a series of coaching activities to alter an emotional state of the first user; and o prompting the first user to complete the action protocol via a mobile device (para 0035, 0048 “intervention by one or more of the wearable devices 202, via user alert GUI 242, and one or more caregivers, is desired.”; para 0058 and 0060 “initiate a communication request with a specified caregiver”; see figures).
Regarding claim 9. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1: " wherein generating the notification specifying the action protocol associated with the condition comprises: o accessing a previously-prescribed dose of a pharmacological medication to the first user to treat the condition; o generating the notification specifying the action protocol comprising a prompt to resume consumption of the pharmacological medication; and o populating the notification with an indication of renewed prescription of the previously-prescribed dose of the pharmacological medication (para 0034-0035, caregiver advice, para 0030 “The device can also be configured to send recommendations on courses of action to alleviate the condition”).
Regarding claim 10. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1, wherein prompting the user to orally recite the story associated with the set of target emotions comprises prompting the user to orally recite a personal story associated with a user experience that elicits the set of target emotions (see rejection of claim 1; Col 10, lines 9-28 “samples evoke multiple emotions at the same time….or only one emotion”; the examiner understands that the same emotion could be monitored to have been evoked multiple times as well as the “the training data indicates an intensity of a given emotion and/or mood.”).
Regarding claim 11. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1, wherein prompting the user to orally recite the story associated with the set of target emotions comprises:" displaying a written story to the user via a mobile device, the written story configured to elicit the set of target emotions; and " prompting the user to orally recite the written story (see rejection of claim 1; Col 10, lines 9-28 “samples evoke multiple emotions at the same time….or only one emotion”; the examiner understands that the same emotion could be monitored to have been evoked multiple times as well as the “the training data indicates an intensity of a given emotion and/or mood.”).
Regarding claim 13. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1:" further comprising, during a first time period:for each user in the user population: - accessing a set of motion data of the user (para 0037 “motion sensor”); " wherein generating the set of psychophysiological markers comprises: generating the set of psychophysiological markers representing correlations between: - the set of target emotions; - the set of biosignals (see rejection of claim 1); and - the set of motion data; " further comprising, during the second time period: accessing a first series of motion data of the first user (see rejection of claim 1); and " wherein identifying the first series of psychophysiological markers comprises: identifying the first series of psychophysiological markers in the first series of biosignals and the first series of motion data, the first series of psychophysiological markers comprising: - a first psychophysiological marker representing a first range of distances, traveled by the first user (para 0033), associated with a first target emotion in the set of target emotions; and- a second psychophysiological marker representing a second range of distances, traveled by the first user, associated with a second target emotion in the set of target emotions (para 0033, 0050, etc.).
Regarding claim 14. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1:" further comprising, during the second time period, accessing a target time window; and " wherein calculating the first risk score comprises: prior to presentation of the condition symptoms by the first user: - based on the first series of psychophysiological markers and the condition model, calculating the first risk score of the symptoms by the first user within the target time window (Knight, Col 25, lls 34- col 26, ll 2, “weighting values” is considered to be the “confidence score” assigned, which allows for identifying the intensity of emotion and distinguishing between emotions).
Regarding claim 15. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 1:" further comprising, during the second time period, accessing a risk threshold; and " wherein calculating the first risk score comprises: prior to presentation of the condition symptoms by the first user: - based on the first series of psychophysiological markers and the condition model, calculating a first time associated with a risk of presentation of the symptoms by the first user, the risk exceeding the risk threshold; and - calculating a first time duration between the first time and a current time; and " wherein generating the notification specifying the action protocol comprises :in response to the first time duration falling below a threshold duration, generating the notification specifying the action protocol (Cronin, para 0054, Knight, Col 25, lls 34- col 26, ll 2, “weighting values” is considered to be the “confidence score” assigned, which allows for identifying the intensity of emotion and distinguishing between emotions).
Regarding claim 17. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 16, wherein generating the notification comprises generating the notification specifying the action protocol comprising a prompt to investigate the first user for renewal of prescription of a dose of the pharmacological medication associated with the condition (para 0034-0035, caregiver advice, 0053, para 0030 “The device can also be configured to send recommendations on courses of action to alleviate the condition”).
Regarding claim 19. Cronin as modified by Knight renders obvious the method of Claim 16: " further comprising, during the second time period, accessing a risk threshold; and " wherein calculating the first risk score comprises: o prior to presentation of the condition symptoms by the first user: - based on the first series of psychophysiological markers and the condition model, calculating a first time associated with a risk of presentation of the symptoms by the first user, the risk exceeding the risk threshold; and - calculating a first time duration between the first time and a current time; and " wherein generating the notification specifying the action protocol comprises: o in response to the first time duration falling below a threshold duration, generating the notification specifying the action protocol (para 0005-0007, 0030, 0031 “sending an alert message to a caregiver when the speech pattern data and the body sensor data trigger at least one of the emotional well-being alerts”, etc.; it is understood that monitoring body sensor data inherently would include monitoring spikes in data and durations to reduce false readings).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796