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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 24 November 2025, wherein:
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are amended.
Misnumbered claim 7 is new. See claim objection below.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, IN Application No. 202341065604, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fail to provide sufficient written description for “analyse the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern; generate user condition data based on analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire” “process the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological patter of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user, wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly” in claim 1, “the SKT is configured to monitor temperature of the user'' in claim 3, “wherein the controller is further configured to derive the computer vision signals from the interactions of the user with a digital avatar” in claim 4, “the digital avatar is configured to interpret pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress directly from at least one physiological parameter of the user” in claim 6, “analyse emotions of the user based on set of bio-signals associated with the user captured by the wearable device; identify features from each bio-signal of the set of bio-signals; and classify the current emotion of the user based on the identified features” in claim 8, “perform ecological momentary assessment (EMA) for detection of changes in patterns, context, or the set of bio-signals and extract historic EMA data, wherein the EMA is state-sensitive and context-sensitive; and correlate the historic EMA data with relevant state data or context data from at least one physiological parameter to timely detect symptoms before the at least one physiological parameter becomes severe” in claim 9, “analysing the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern; generating user condition data based on analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire” and “processing the pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user, based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user, wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting the personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly” in claim 10, and “assess the current emotion of the user and guardian before providing step-by-step instructions to mitigate an ongoing emotion dysregulation episode of the user” in claim 11 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may 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). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed applications, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-11 do not gain benefit of priority to IN Application No. 202341065604. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-11 have an effective filing date of 16 May 2024.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 7 has been renumbered as claim 11.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is missing the term “is” between “the controller” and “configured to execute” in the second limitation.
Claim 1 is missing the term “a” preceding each of “child intervention program (CIP)”, “parent coping program (PCP)”, and “current emotion” at the end of the second to last limitation.
Claim 6 is missing the term “the” preceding “pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern” in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 8 is missing the term “a” preceding “set of bio-signals” at the end of the second to last limitation.
Claim 9 is missing the term “an” preceding “ecological momentary assessment (EMA)” in the first limitation.
Claim 10 is missing the term “a” preceding each of “child intervention program (CIP)”, “parent coping program (PCP)”, and “current emotion” at the end of the second to last limitation.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(f) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the digital avatar is configured to interpret pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress directly from at least one physiological parameter of the user” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a photoplethysmography (PPG), an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor, an accelerometer (ACC), a skin temperature (SKT) sensor, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), or a global positioning system (GPS).” Thus, an embodiment is claimed wherein the plurality of sensors comprises only one sensor. It is unclear how a plurality of sensors can comprise one sensor. By definition, a plurality is more than one. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. It is recommended to amend a “plurality of sensors” to “one or more sensors”. Dependent claim 3 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the use of single brackets renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “s” within the single brackets is part of the claimed invention or is improperly deleted (proper deletions of 5 characters or less are marked with double brackets, not single brackets. See MPEP 714.). Dependent claim 6 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “the digital avatar is configured to interpret pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress directly from at least one physiological parameter of the user” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 43 and 53 of the specification which provide the only language related to this limitation yet merely recite similar language as the claim without any description for performing the claimed functionality. Furthermore, the remainder of the disclosure treats the non-descript digital avatar as a passive element with respect to “interpreting pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress”, not an active element as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The term “severe” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “severe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the current emotion of the user and guardian" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 1 only recites “current emotion of the user”.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 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, 8, and 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “analyse the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern; generate user condition data based on analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire” in claim 1, “analyse emotions of the user based on set of bio-signals associated with the user captured by the wearable device; identify features from each bio-signal of the set of bio-signals; and classify the current emotion of the user based on the identified features” in claim 8, and “analysing the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern; generating user condition data based on analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire” in claim 10 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. 39, 40, 46, 47, 50, and 63 of the specification. For instance, para. 40 merely recites that the “AI module 124 comprises multiple AI algorithms” without any meaningful description, let alone what the analysis to detect a presence of the pre-atypical behavior physiological pattern entails or what the generated user condition data report comprises as the output. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “process the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological patter of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user, wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly” in claim 1 and “processing the pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user, based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user, wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting the personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly” in claim 10 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. 41-48, 59-61, 63 of the specification. For instance, para. 45 merely recites that the “emotion module 120 is responsible for analysing emotions from the sensor signals captured by the wearable device 126. The emotion module 120 identifies important features from each bio-signal. These features are then used by a machine learning algorithm of the AI module 124 to classify the emotion that the user is experiencing. The machine learning algorithm is any algorithm that is capable of classifying emotions, such as support vector machines, decision trees, or neural networks.” However, this is merely a results-based statement without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for performing the claimed functionality. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding any description of recommending personalized coping strategies based on current emotion of the user, let alone assessing the current emotion of the user. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for monitoring temperature of the outermost surface of the body of the user, does not reasonably provide enablement for temperature of the user, specifically any temperature of the user that is not of the outermost surface of the body of the user. See para. 37 of the specification which recites that the SKT is “the temperature of the outermost surface of the body. The SKT is different from the core temperature.” Thus, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “wherein the controller is further configured to derive the computer vision signals from the interactions of the user with a digital avatar” 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. 22 and 44 of the specification which recite similar language as the claim without any description of how the computer vision signals are derived from the interactions of the user with a digital avatar. Dependent claim 6 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the digital avatar is configured to interpret pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress directly from at least one physiological parameter of the user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may 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. See, for example, para. 43 and 53 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claim without any description. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding what a digital avatar comprises such that it “is configured to interpret pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress directly from at least one physiological parameter of the user”. In other words, a “digital avatar” is, at best, a representation of software. Yet, the disclosure treats it as a black box with respect to this claimed functionality. Furthermore, the remainder of the disclosure treats the non-descript digital avatar as a passive element with respect to “interpreting pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern or mental stress”, not an active element as claimed. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “perform ecological momentary assessment (EMA) for detection of changes in patterns, context, or the set of bio-signals and extract historic EMA data, wherein the EMA is state-sensitive and context-sensitive; and correlate the historic EMA data with relevant state data or context data from at least one physiological parameter to timely detect symptoms before the at least one physiological parameter becomes severe” 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, para. 47 of the specification which provides the only reference to an EMA yet only recites similar language as the claim without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for performing the claimed functionality.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “assess the current emotion of the user and guardian before providing step-by-step instructions to mitigate an ongoing emotion dysregulation episode 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. See, for example, at least para. 21, 41, and 45 of the specification. For instance, Applicant asserts that para. 45 of the specification provides support for this new claim. See Remarks at pg. 5. However, para. 45 is silent regarding “assessing the current emotion of the user and guardian” (bolded for emphasis) and merely recites that the "emotion module 120 identifies important features from each bio-signal. These features are then used by a machine learning algorithm of the Al module 124 to classify the emotion that the user is experiencing. The machine learning algorithm is any algorithm that is capable of classifying emotions, such as support vector machines, decision trees, or neural networks." However, this is merely a results-based statement without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for performing the claimed functionality. The disclosure is silent regarding any description for “identifying important features from each bio-signal” and treats “a machine learning algorithm” as a black box. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding any description of “providing step-by-step instructions to mitigate an ongoing emotion dysregulation episode of the user”, let alone “assessing the current emotion of the user and guardian”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 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 product and a method which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
An artificial intelligence (AI) based remote emotion detection and control system, comprising:
a wearable device adapted to be worn by a user, wherein the wearable device comprises a plurality of sensors configured to detect at least one physiological parameter of the user; and
a computing device having a controller and a memory for storing one or more instructions, and the controller configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receive the at least one physiological parameter and responses for a pre-assessment questionnaire from a user to identify behaviour data of the user;
analyse the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern;
generate user condition data based on analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire;
send the user condition data to at least one healthcare provider or guardian based on the consent by the user;
transmit an alert to the user based on the detection of the pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern, wherein the alert corresponds to at least one of a text, or pop-up notification stating a suspected emotional dysregulation, or regulated states of the user; and
process the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user, based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user,
wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting the personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly.
Independent claim 10 recites:
A method for operating an artificial intelligence (AI) based remote emotion detection and control system, comprising:
collecting, by a wearable device, at least one physiological parameter of a user in real-time;
receiving the at least one physiological parameter and responses for a pre-assessment questionnaire from the user to identify behaviour data of the user;
analysing the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire to detect presence or absence of a pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern;
generating user condition data based on the analysis of the at least one physiological parameter and the responses for the pre-assessment questionnaire;
sending the user condition data to at least one healthcare provider or guardian based on the consent by the user;
transmitting an alert to the user based on the detection of the pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern, wherein the alert corresponds to at least one of a text or pop-up notification stating a suspected emotional dysregulation, or regulated states of the user; and
processing the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern to recommend a personalized intervention regimen for the user, based on the detected pre-atypical behaviour physiological pattern of the user, the personalized intervention regimen corresponding to personalized coping strategies such as child intervention program (CIP), and parent coping program (PCP) recommended based on current emotion of the user,
wherein the personalized intervention regimen is modulated based on computer vision signals by adjusting the personalized intervention regimen intensity accordingly.
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) as it is merely following rules or instructions by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. They all also 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 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, except for claims 2, amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does 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, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: reciting the system as AI based (claims 1 and 10); a wearable device comprising a plurality of sensors (claim 1); a computing device having a controller and a memory for storing one or more instructions wherein the controller is configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform operations (claim 1); a pop-up notification (claims 1 and 10); computer vision signals (claims 1 and 10); the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a photoplethysmography (PPG), an electrodermal activity (EDA) sensor, an accelerometer (ACC), a skin temperature (SKT) sensor, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), or a global positioning system (GPS) (claim 2); a digital avatar (claim 4), a user interface (claim 5), and a wearable device (claim 10). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed. See, for example, at least Fig. 1 which illustrates the components as non-descript black boxes in a conventional arrangement, and at least para. 12-16, 33-47, 53-55, 82, and 83 of the specification which identify that none of the elements are particular or necessary to implement the claimed process. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). For instance, at least para. 83 identifies the computing device is any computerized device while para. 54 identifies that the wearable device “can be any generic wearable device”. Similarly, para. 45 recites that the AI module includes a machine learning algorithm and that this machine learning algorithm “is any algorithm that is capable of classifying emotions”. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system. Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, unlike the claims found patent-eligible in McRO, the digital avatar is merely recited to be used while the disclosure is silent regarding any rules for its animation beyond merely reciting in results-based language that it “responds with compassion, mimicking the tone, storylines, and facial expressions of the child.” See para. 52 of the specification. Additionally, the wearable device comprising a plurality of sensors, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) while the remaining additional elements identified above merely indicate a field of use (i.e., use of a computer to implement the judicial exception). Thus, the components, identified above, 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, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they 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. For instance, the claims are silent regarding identifying a particular disease or medical condition and providing any particular treatment or prophylaxis for any identified disease or medical condition. In particular, no aspect of the “personalized intervention regimen” amounts to a particular treatment or prophylaxis as claimed and disclosed as they are neither linked to treating any particular disease or medical condition nor disclosed beyond merely being reciting as options to be performed. 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 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 process 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, above) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. 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. 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, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. Again, this evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed as identified above. Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For instance, unlike the claims found patent-eligible in McRO, the digital avatar is merely recited to be used while the disclosure is silent regarding any rules for its animation beyond merely reciting in results-based language that it “responds with compassion, mimicking the tone, storylines, and facial expressions of the child.” See para. 52 of the specification. Similarly, the AI module is merely recited to be used without any meaningful description of what algorithm(s) it comprises, how it is trained, nor what the parameters are that bound its operations. Additionally, the wearable device comprising a plurality of sensors, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea) while the remaining additional elements identified above merely indicate a field of use (i.e., use of a computer to implement the judicial exception). 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 claim amounts 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sahin (US 2015/0099946).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sahin teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) based remote emotion detection and control system (claim 1) and a method for operating an artificial intelligence (AI) based remote emotion detection and control system (claim 10), comprising:
a wearable device adapted to be worn by a user, wherein the wearable device comprises a plurality of sensors configured to detect at least one physiological parameter of the user (Sahin, Fig. 1A and 1B, wearable data collection device 104, Audio record 116a, Video record 116b, Counts 116c, Head position 116d; Heart and Breath 116e, EEG 116f, Eye track 116g, Motion track 116h, EMG 116i); and
a computing device having a controller and a memory for storing one or more instructions (Sahin, Fig. 1A, remote analysis and data management system 118, Fig. 1B, data analysis and feedback system 152, learning and statistical analysis system 160), and the controller configured to execute the one or more instructions to perform operations (Sahin, Fig. 1A, remote analysis and data management system 118, Fig. 1B, data analysis and feedback system 152, learning and statistical analysis system 160), the operations comprising:
receive the at least one physiological parameter and responses for a pre-assessment questionnaire from a user to identify behaviour data of the user (Sahin, Fig. 1A illustrates this; para. 97, “the caregiver may be prompted to provide additional data regarding the sessio