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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1, 11, 14, 17-18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 14-19), machine (claims 1-13), and article of manufacture (claim 20). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
-a memory that stores instructions; and
-a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
-generate a digital representation associated with a provider, wherein the digital representation is configured to emulate the provider and interact with an individual;
-activate at least one sensor associated with the individual to obtain sensor data;
-interact, by utilizing the digital representation and by utilizing an artificial intelligence model associated with the digital representation, with the individual to obtain information from the individual;
-adaptively modify at least one characteristic of the digital representation and sensor utilization during the interaction based on information obtained from the individual, the sensor data, facial expression data, body motion data, or a combination thereof;
-determine, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model to analyze the information and the sensor data, a prediction for a medical complaint, a prediction for a diagnosis associated with the medical complaint, or a combination thereof;
-generate, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model, a digital record associated with the individual that includes a plan associated with treating the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof; and
-facilitate execution of the plan to treat the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof by initiating a treatment, a procedure, dispensing of a medication, a medical test, or a combination thereof.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because interacting with a person to determine a prediction and then generating a treatment plan to be executed is managing interactions between people and personal behavior.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because analyzing gathered information, determining a prediction, and generating a treatment plan can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising:
-a memory that stores instructions (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 38, 45); and
-a processor configured to execute the instructions (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 38, 45) to:
-generate a digital representation associated with a provider, wherein the digital representation is configured to emulate the provider and interact with an individual (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 53);
-activate at least one sensor associated with the individual to obtain sensor data (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 39);
-interact, by utilizing the digital representation and by utilizing an artificial intelligence model associated with the digital representation (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 48), with the individual to obtain information from the individual;
-adaptively modify at least one characteristic of the digital representation and sensor utilization during the interaction based on information obtained from the individual, the sensor data, facial expression data, body motion data, or a combination thereof (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 53-54);
-determine, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 48) to analyze the information and sensor data, a prediction for a medical complaint, a prediction for a diagnosis associated with the medical complaint, or a combination thereof;
-generate, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 48), a digital record associated with the individual that includes a plan associated with treating the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof; and
-facilitate execution of the plan to treat the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof by initiating a treatment, a procedure, dispensing of a medication, a medical test, or a combination thereof.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 14 and 20 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 14 and 20 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: The claim specifies processor utilizing AI model to control behavior of the digital representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: The claim specifies the processor to modify the digital representation, AI model based on information obtained, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4: The claim specifies the processor to receive a signal from a device to control digital representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies the processor to interact via a user interface, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies the processor to determine sentiment based on interacting with digital representation and to adjust the digital representation in response, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7: The claim specifies the information from the individual, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 8: The claim specifies processor to display a live video stream of the provider to replace digital representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9: The claim specifies the processor to determine compliance based on additional interactions with the digital representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10: The claim specifies the processor to register the user with the system, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11: The claim specifies the processor to determine the prediction, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12: The claim specifies the processor to generate the digital representation by utilizing video content taken of the provider, etc., which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13: The claim specifies the processor to train the AI model, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies generating different digital representations to obtain information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16: The claim specifies altering a behavior based on interactions of the individual with the digital representation, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17: The claim specifies initiating a treatment, which is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 18: The claim specifies interactions determined to be effective or not, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: The claim specifies contacting the provider, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as generate a digital representation, activate sensor, interact with an individual, modify digital representation, facilitate execution of plan, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); generate a digital record, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12, 15-16, 19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2 (control behavior of digital representation), 3, 6, 16 ( modify digital representation), 4 (receive a signal), 5 (interact via an interface), 8 (live video stream), 12, 15 (generate the digital representation), 19 (contact provider), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 10 (register the individual), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Day (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0050003).
As per claim 1, Day teaches a system, comprising:
-a memory that stores instructions (Day: para. 60); and
-a processor configured to execute the instructions to (Day: para. 134):
-generate a digital representation associated with a provider, wherein the digital representation is configured to emulate the provider (Day: para. 77-79; Create a virtual agent representing the real person.) and interact with an individual (Day: para. 103; User doing a question-answer session with a therapist (i.e. avatar).);
-activate at least one sensor associated with the individual to obtain sensor data (Day: para. 174; Obtain sensor data while in a session with a therapist.);
-interact, by utilizing the digital representation and by utilizing an artificial intelligence model associated with the digital representation, with the individual to obtain information from the individual (Day: para. 103; User doing a question-answer session with a therapist (i.e. avatar).);
-adaptively modify at least one characteristic of the digital representation and sensor utilization during the interaction based on information obtained from the individual, the sensor data, facial expression data, body motion data, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 127; para. 129; Metaverse engagement with users interacting coupled with machine learning enhanced by biometric sensors collecting and exchanging information between two users.);
-determine, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model to analyze the information, a prediction for a medical complaint, a prediction for a diagnosis associated with the medical complaint, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 104; para. 107; Predict a disease condition of the user based on input.);
-generate, by utilizing the artificial intelligence model, a digital record associated with the individual that includes a plan associated with treating the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 189; Recommending reprogramming of negative beliefs through certain types of exercises.); and
-facilitate execution of the plan to treat the medical complaint, the diagnosis, or a combination thereof by initiating a treatment, a procedure, dispensing of a medication, a medical test, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 189; Recommending reprogramming of negative beliefs through certain types of exercises.).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to utilize the artificial intelligence model to control a behavior of the digital representation associated with the provider (Day: para. 115).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to modify the digital representation, the artificial intelligence model, or a combination thereof, based on the information obtained from the individual (Day: para. 122; Providing interface to modify human characteristics relating to avatars.).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a signal from a device of the provider to control the digital representation associated with the provider (Day: para. 122).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to interact with the individual via a user interface of an application of the system (Day: para. 126).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a sentiment of individual based on the interacting of the digital representation with the individual, and wherein the processor is further configured to adjust a personality, a behavior, an appearance, a tone, or a combination thereof, for the digital representation in response to the sentiment (Day: para. 122; para. 138).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the information from the individual comprises audio content, video content, text content, virtual reality content, augmented reality content, facial expression data, body motion data, sensor data, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 108).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine compliance of the individual with the plan based on analyzing additional information from the individual obtained via additional interactions conducted by the digital representation with the individual (Day: para. 98; para. 168; Measure both before re-programming for a baseline and after re-programming is complete to compare them.).
As per claim 10, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to register the individual with the system based on the information obtained from the individual (Day: para. 20; para. 102; Create a user profile based on information of the user.).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the prediction for the medical complaint, the prediction for the diagnosis associated with the medical complaint, or a combination thereof, based on the sensor data (Day: para. 138; Along with sensor data and inputted information, mapping the data to disease condition.).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the digital representation associated with the provider by utilizing video content taken of the provider, audio content taken from the provider, a provider profile associated with the profile, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 74; Videos of gestures, expressions, etc. converted to 3D rendering in the metaverse for the virtual agent.).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day teaches wherein the processor is further configured to train the artificial intelligence model with training data to enable the determination of the prediction of the medical complaint, the prediction of the diagnosis, or a combination thereof (Day: para. 109).
Claim 14 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 15, the method of claim 14 is as described. Day teaches further comprising generating different digital representations associated with the provider to interact with different individuals to obtain other information from the different individuals.
As per claim 16, the method of claim 14 is as described. Day teaches further comprising altering a behavior, an appearance, or a combination thereof, of the digital representation over time based on interacting with the individual (Day: para. 122).
As per claim 17, the method of claim 14 is as described. Day teaches further comprising initiating the treatment, the procedure, dispensing of the medication, the medical test, or a combination thereof, based on the plan (Day: para. 189; Recommending reprogramming of negative beliefs through certain types of exercises.).
As per claim 18, the method of claim 14 is as described. Day teaches further comprising detecting a keyword, statement, facial expression, body movement, the sensor data, or a combination thereof, to determine if the interacting with the individual is effective (Day: para. 21; para. 140; Score calculated based on baseline measure and current measure.).
Claim 20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0050003) in view of Soori-Arachi (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0005966).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 1 is as described. Day does not explicitly teach the following, however, Soori-Arachi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display a live video stream of the provider to replace the digital representation associated with the provider upon occurrence of a triggering condition (Soori-Arachi: para. 272).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Soori-Arachi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Soori-Arachi to the teachings of Day would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying a live-video stream of the provider to Day teaching an AI gathering of patient information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that provided a more accurate diagnosis and treatment to patients.
As per claim 19, the method of claim 14 is as described. Day does not explicitly teach the following, however, Soori-Arachi teaches further comprising contacting the provider if further review of the digital record is required (Soori-Arachi: para. 272).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Soori-Arachi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Soori-Arachi to the teachings of Day would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying contacting the provider to Day teaching an AI gathering of patient information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that provided a more accurate diagnosis and treatment to patients.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention utilizes concrete technology and non-verbal, machine-captured inputs, and therefore not performable by the human mind. While the claims do require sensors and processors, which are in the physical realm of things, it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, but just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. Generic computer technology for gathering and processing sensor data and the providing an adaptable digital representation do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. Examiner further states that while a sensor is used to collect data, but analyzing the collected data is a mental process. Steps that may be performed in the mind, even if recited as being performed on a computer, are mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting, in holding that the claim recites an abstract idea, that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper”). While certain embodiments of the claim language would be too complex to be performed mentally, there is no evidence of such complexity in the particular claim language that would indicate that the tasks performed within the abstract idea could not be practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing SRI Int' l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
When considering if a particular treatment and prophylaxis is considered a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two, Examiner considered the factors presented in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).• Factor A. The treatment plan determined from the abstract idea is not "particular," i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception(s). Here, the treatment delivered is not specified. The determined treatment that is delivered is never specified. Finally, facilitation execution of a treatment may be manually done by a human and not integrated into the computer system performing the abstract idea.• Factor B. The treatment limitation does not have a significant relationship to the judicial exception – that is it does not integrate the law of nature into a practical application. As stated above, because the delivered treatment type is not defined, any possible treatment could not reasonably be considered known in the art as a treatment. • Factor C. The treatment or prophylaxis limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception and is only extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(g))). The facilitation of a treatment according to a generated treatment plan is well known, nominally related to the inventive concept of creating the treatment plan, and amount to necessary data output similar to that of In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The step does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of determining a treatment plan for a patient.Therefore, the claims only recite the prophylactic step as a tool which only serves to as insignificant post solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception. As there is no positively recited administration step of the treatment, but only “recommending a treatment”, the claim does not qualify as a prophylaxis step under Step 2A Prong 2. In order to qualify as a "treatment" or "prophylaxis" limitation for purposes of this consideration, the claim limitation in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. An example of such a limitation is a step of "administering amazonic acid to a patient" or a step of "administering a course of plasmapheresis to a patient." If the limitation does not actually provide a treatment or prophylaxis, e.g., it is merely an intended use of the claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the "treatment or prophylaxis" consideration. For example, a step of "prescribing a topical steroid to a patient with eczema" is not a positive limitation because it does not require that the steroid actually be used by or on the patient, and a recitation that a claimed product is a "pharmaceutical composition" or that a "feed dispenser is operable to dispense a mineral supplement" are not affirmative limitations because they are merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used.
Applicant argues that adaptive avatar plus adaptive sensor utilization is more than invoking a computer as a tool. Examiner states that there are no improved computer resources to have invented, but just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. Generic computer technology for gathering and processing sensor data and the providing an adaptable digital representation do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology.
Applicant argues that prediction is based on sensor data, which cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees. A user is capable of receiving information from the sensor and analyzing that information. Steps that may be performed in the mind, even if recited as being performed on a computer, are mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting, in holding that the claim recites an abstract idea, that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper”). While certain embodiments of the claim language would be too complex to be performed mentally, there is no evidence of such complexity in the particular claim language that would indicate that the tasks performed within the abstract idea could not be practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing SRI Int' l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Applicant argues that the specification discloses improvements in computing efficiency and special-purpose processors supporting these operations. Examiner states that while the specification states that it may over time reduce amount of computer operations and needs less processing power, it does not provide objective evidence if it actually does the claimed improvement, it merely states that it “may”.
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Day does not disclose “adaptively modify[ing] characteristics of the digital representation,” specifically a feedback-controlled loop. Examiner disagrees. Day teaches a Metaverse with the avatars interacting with each other and emulating the avatar based on gathered sensor information, therefore teaches the limitation.
Applicant argues that Day does not disclose “facility[ing] execution of the plan.” Examiner disagrees. Claimed limitation facilitates execution of a treatment plan and not actually providing a specific treatment. Day teaches providing exercises, which is an initiation of a treatment and the system facilitated the execution of the plan by providing the treatment plan to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 102425479B1 – Teaches a system for creating an avatar with user’s information and recommending therapeutic agent.
Paz et al. – WO 2024/194863 – Teaches a caregiver avatar system for handling interactions between a caregiver and a patient.
Mian et al. – WO 2023/159236 – Teaches an interaction with patient avatar.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681