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
Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10-19 are amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 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 1-4 and 6-20 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 1-4 and 6-19) and a machine (claim 20). Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-20 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 method for delivering digital therapeutics via a digital therapeutics delivery device, the method comprising:
-acquiring movement detection data of a patient using at least one of a camera, smartphone, or tablet, the movement detection data comprising at least one RGBD image or skeleton form of the patient;
-extracting feature data from the movement detection data, the feature data comprising an execution time of at least one detected movement;
-identifying a degree of an emotional disorder of the patient based on inputting the feature data into an emotional disorder artificial intelligence model trained to output a predicted degree of an emotional disorder based on input digital therapeutics usage information comprising the feature data;
-determining digital therapeutics content to be delivered to the patient according to the identified degree of the emotional disorder, the digital therapeutics content comprising at least
one of visual content or auditory content; and
-transmitting the determined digital therapeutics content to a user terminal of the patient to cause the user terminal to output the digital therapeutics content.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because managing user’s health based on interacting with the user determining emotional disorder is managing interactions with people and managing personal medical problem.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because identifying degree of emotional disorder and determining digital therapeutics to be delivered 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 method for delivering digital therapeutics via a digital therapeutics delivery device, the method comprising:
-acquiring movement detection data of a patient using at least one of a camera, smartphone, or tablet, the movement detection data comprising at least one RGBD image or skeleton form of the patient (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 14, 20, General purpose computer);
-extracting feature data from the movement detection data, the feature data comprising an execution time of at least one detected movement;
-identifying a degree of an emotional disorder of the patient based on inputting the feature data into an emotional disorder artificial intelligence model trained (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 16, 19) to output a predicted degree of an emotional disorder based on input digital therapeutics usage information comprising the feature data;
-determining digital therapeutics content to be delivered to the patient according to the identified degree of the emotional disorder, the digital therapeutics content comprising at least
one of visual content or auditory content; and
-transmitting the determined digital therapeutics content to a user terminal of the patient to cause the user terminal to output the digital therapeutics content (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 14-15, Digital therapeutics delivery device include a communication unit, memory, processor, etc.).
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 claim 20 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 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 identifying including delivering a test and generating a diagnosis information based on result of the test, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 3: The claim specifies the diagnosis test, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 4: The claim specifies AI model is trained to identify degree of emotional disorder, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies feature data, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 7: The claim specifies determining therapeutics content includes selecting a content set and generating digital therapeutics to be delivered, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 8: The claim specifies selecting content set, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 9: The claim specifies the content set, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 10: The claim specifies the content set including physical activity content, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 11: The claim specifies deriving patient behavior with behavioral inhibition system and setting a behavioral activation system objective of the derived patient behavior, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12-17: The claim specifies the interactive content configured to display an avatar and provide a required task, and analyze reaction time, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18: The claim specifies receiving digital therapeutics from hospital server, receiving request information from terminal, performing user authentication, and transmitting digital therapeutics content to user terminal, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: The claim specifies delivering including receiving digital treatment environment information from user terminal, modify therapeutics, and delivering modified therapeutics, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 claim 1 does 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 acquire movement detection data, transmit digital therapeutics, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
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, 4, 7, and 11-19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2 (delivering diagnosis test), 7 (generating digital therapeutics), 11 (setting a behavioral activation system), 12-17 (display an avatar, provide a task), 18 (receiving digital therapeutics prescription, receiving digital therapeutics request, transmitting digital therapeutics), 19 (receiving digital treatment, transmitting modified digital therapeutics), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 4 (identifying based on AI model), e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 1-4 and 6-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended features cannot be performed in the human mind. 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 claim recites a technical solution. The present invention solves the problem associated with determining and delivering digital therapeutics content, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Applicant argues that there are no generic features. Examiner states that while the claims require various computing devices, 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, 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.
Applicant argues that the claim provides improvements over previous medical science and artificial intelligence technologies. Examiner disagrees. Applicant provides a subjective opinion rather than objective evidence regarding the improvement. Examiner asks for further clarification and evidence regarding the improvement. The Applicant not trying to cure a shortcoming in existing computer technology and does not contend that it was necessary to develop innovative computer hardware/software in order to perform the steps.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soori-Arachi – U.S. Publication No. 2025/0014731 – Teaches a system for using digital avatars in virtual environments to integrate telemedicine.
Day – U.S. Publication No. 2024/0050003 – Teaches a system for providing a digital framework for validating responses of user using a chatbot.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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