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 .
Claims 1-6, 9-17, 20-28 have been amended. Claims 7-8 and 18-19 have been cancelled. Claim 29 is new. Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 20-29 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10, 12, 15, 21-22, 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 10, 12, 15, 21-22, 24 and 26 recite “Schizophrenia” with a capital letter S. However, the S should not be capitalized, and all instances of “Schizophrenia” will be interpreted as “schizophrenia.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-17, and 20-29 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 29 are drawn to a system for determining a schizophrenia parameter which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15-17, 20-28 are drawn to a method for determining a schizophrenia parameter which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claim 1 (Group I) recites a system, comprising circuitry (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it) configured to:
receive speech data associated with speaking of a user and motion data indicating head motion of the user, the motion data being captured by a device (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it) worn by the user;
compare the speech data and the motion data to predict speech related motion;
and determine a schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion wherein the schizophrenia parameter indicates at least one of a likelihood and a severity of the schizophrenia symptoms;
determine speech related motion parameter based on the speech related motion;
determine condition rating of the speech related motion as the schizophrenia parameter;
compute a change amount of the condition rating of the schizophrenia parameter relative to a baseline;
compare the change amount with a threshold; and
in response to the change amount exceeding the threshold in magnitude, provide a notification.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mathematical concept and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or mathematical calculations and/or fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of abstract idea(s) are underlined and deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 15 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1 (Group I), they are just directed towards different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 20-29 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 16 recite detecting the user is speaking; and capturing the motion data in response to detecting that the user is speaking, Claims 3 and 17 recite capturing the speech data in response to detecting that the user is speaking, Claim 4 recites wherein detecting the user is speaking is based on at least one of the speech data, manual input data, and sensing data, Claim 5 recites determining speech parameter from the received speech data; comparing the speech data and the motion data based on the speech parameter to predict speech related motion; and determining the schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion, Claims 6 and 20 recite wherein the speech parameter includes at least one of speech rhythm and prosody, Claim 21 recites wherein the schizophrenia parameter indicates likelihood and/or severity of the schizophrenia symptoms, Claim 22 recites determining speech related motion parameter based on the speech related motion; and determining condition rating of the speech related motion as the schizophrenia parameter, Claims 9 and 23 recite wherein the speech related motion parameter includes at least one of speed of speech related motion, direction of the speech related motion away from a given centre point and amplitude of the speech related motion, Claims 10 and 24 recite wherein the condition rating is determined based upon a comparison between the speech related motion of the user and an individual not having schizophrenia, Claims 11 and 25 recite wherein the condition rating is determined based upon a comparison with user's average of the speech related motion, Claims 12 and 26 recite wherein providing the schizophrenia parameter to either the user or a medical practitioner, Claims 13 and 27 recite wherein the device is a head-mounted device (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), Claims 14 and 28 recite wherein the head-mounted device is either a headphone or a hearing aid (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it), and Claim 29 recites wherein the device worn by the user is equipped with noise cancellation (MPEP §2106.05(f), apply it) and a level of noise cancellation applied increases with an increasing condition rating, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 15.
Furthermore, Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 20-29 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of circuity and head-mounted device (a headphone, a hearing aid) which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea or using or other machinery merely as a tool, e.g. see paragraphs [0025] and [0074] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than elements that are recited at an “apply it” level. The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are generic, see paragraphs [0025] and [0074] of the Specification disclosing that the additional elements (i.e. circuitry, head-mounted device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 20-29 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly further narrow the additional elements found in the independent claims by specifying the type of device.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-6, 9-17, and 20-29 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-6, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 20-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas in view of Leask and Yocca (U.S. P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0202373 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abbas discloses a system comprising circuitry configured to:
receive speech data associated with speaking of a user and motion data indicating head motion of the user, (Page 30, Introduction, discusses using digital tools to measure speech characteristics and computer vision to quantify changes in facial expressivity.);
compare the speech data and the motion data to predict speech related motion (Pages 31-33 discuss using the speech related data and a model to predict speech related motion.); and
determine a schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion (Page 30 discusses determining prosody and speech characteristics, construed as determining a schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion.),
wherein the schizophrenia parameter indicates at least one of a likelihood and a severity of the schizophrenia symptoms (Page 31 discusses the data, including the schizophrenia parameter, being used to determine the likelihood of the participant has schizophrenia.);
determine speech related motion parameter based on the speech related motion (Page 30 discusses analyzing the head movement of the participant.);
determine condition rating of the speech related motion as the schizophrenia parameter (Pages 30-31 discuss determining subscale scores using the data collected using the PANNS subscale.);
compute a change amount of the condition rating of the schizophrenia parameter relative to a baseline (Pages 30 and 33 discuss measuring movements and behavioral symptoms to detect changes and abnormalities in patients compared to healthy control.);
however, Abbas does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the motion data is being captured by a device worn by the user,
comparing the change amount with a threshold; and
in response to the change amount exceeding the threshold in magnitude, provide a notification.
Leask teaches having the motion data is being captured by a device worn by the user (Page 30 discusses the motion data being detected by sensors on a baseball cap worn by the speaker.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abbas to be a worn by the user, as taught by Leask, in order to use a “commercially available movement sensor in a variety of clinical settings (Leask, Page 30).”
Yocca teaches:
comparing the change amount with a threshold (Paragraphs [0102] and [0137] discuss measuring change in physiological parameters to a baseline and a threshold.); and
in response to the change amount exceeding the threshold in magnitude, provide a notification (Paragraph [0137] discusses sending an alert to the caregiver when a threshold is exceeded.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbas to including monitoring for changes using a threshold and providing a notification, as taught by Yocca, in order to “identify anomalies and/or predict the agitation episode (Yocca, Paragraph [0137]).”
Regarding claim 2, Abbas discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to:
detect the user is speaking (Pages 30-31 discuss video-based assessments being captured when the user is prompted to answer questions, construed as detecting when the user is speaking.); and capture the motion data in response to detecting that the user is speaking (Pages 30-31 discusses recording video as long as the participant is answering the question.).
Regarding claim 3, Abbas discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to capture the speech data in response to detecting that the user is speaking (Pages 30-31 discusses recording video as long as the participant is answering the question.).
Regarding claim 4, Abbas discloses wherein detecting the user is speaking is based on the speech data (Pages 30-31 discuss video-based assessments being captured when the user is prompted to answer questions, construed as detecting when the user is speaking.).
Regarding claim 5, Abbas discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to:
determine speech parameter from the received speech data (Page 30 discusses determining prosody and speech characteristics, construed as determining a schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion.);
compare the speech data and the motion data based on the speech parameter to predict speech related motion (Pages 31-33 discuss using the speech related data and a model to predict speech related motion.); and
determine the schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion (Page 30 discusses determining prosody and speech characteristics, construed as determining a schizophrenia parameter based upon the speech related motion.).
Regarding claim 6, Abbas discloses wherein the speech parameter includes at prosody (Page 30 discusses the parameters including prosody.).
Regarding claim 10, Abbas discloses wherein the condition rating is determined based upon a comparison between the speech related motion of the user and an individual not having schizophrenia (Page 30, Introduction, discusses using healthy controls to determine disease severity by comparison of the head movement with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).
Regarding claim 11, Abbas discloses wherein the condition rating is determined based upon a comparison with user's average of the speech related motion (Page 31 discusses using the average rate of head movement of the participant for the analysis.).
Regarding claim 13, Abbas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is configured as a head-mounted device.
Leask teaches wherein the system is configured as a head-mounted device (Page 30 discusses the motion data being detected by sensors on a baseball cap worn by the speaker, construed as a head-mounted device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abbas to be a worn by the user on their head, as taught by Leask, in order to use a “commercially available movement sensor in a variety of clinical settings (Leask, Page 30).”
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 3, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 7, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 8, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 24 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 10, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 11, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 26 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 12, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 27 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 13, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 9, 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas in view of Leask, and in further view of Burton (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0169417 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Abbas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the speech related motion parameter includes at least one of speed of speech related motion, direction of the speech related motion away from a given centre point and amplitude of the speech related motion.
Burton teaches wherein the speech related motion parameter includes direction of the speech related motion away from a given centre point (Paragraph [4449], specifically page 222, discusses monitoring the users eye-gaze direction in response to a command or task on a screen, construed as direction of the speech related motion away from a given centre point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbas include a specific motion related parameter, as taught by Burton, in order to allow schizophrenia subjects and patients to “benefit from personalized identification or guidance (Burton, Paragraph [3883]).”
Regarding claim 12, Abbas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to: provide the schizophrenia parameter to either the user or a medical practitioner.
Burton provides the schizophrenia parameter to either the user or a medical practitioner (Paragraph [2794] discusses providing the user’s data, including the schizophrenia-related data, to the user’s doctor’s or healthcare workers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbas, as taught by Howard, in order to allow schizophrenia subjects and patients to “benefit from personalized identification or guidance (Burton, Paragraph [3883]).”
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 9, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas in view of Leask, and in further view of Howard (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0251985 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Abbas does not appear to disclose wherein the head-mounted device is either a headphone or a hearing aid.
Howard teaches wherein the head-mounted device is a headphone (Paragraphs [0083] and [0536] discuss sensors including headphones for analyzing clinical biomarkers of a user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abbas to be a headphone, as taught by Howard, in order to use a “be convenient and user friendly for the user (Howard, Paragraph [0536]).”
Claim 28 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 14, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas in view of Leask and Yocca, and in further view of Everman (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0386018 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Abbas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the device worn by the user is equipped with noise cancellation and a level of noise cancellation applied increases with an increasing condition rating.
Everman teaches wherein the device worn by the user is equipped with noise cancellation and a level of noise cancellation applied increases with an increasing condition rating (Paragraphs [0036-0037] discuss adjusting noise cancelling in response to the user’s physiological characteristics for those that suffer from mental illness, including schizophrenia.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Abbas to be a noise cancelling based on condition rating, as taught by Everman, in order to “affect [a] physiological state of a user (Everman, Paragraph [0022]).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered.
Objections to the Claims
With respect to the objections, claims 5, 10, 12, 15, 21-22, 24 and 26 remain objected to as they recite “Schizophrenia” with a capital letter S.
The remaining objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asserts that the claims amendments “are not directed to a judicial exception, are not directed to an abstract idea, and clearly recite statutory subject matter (Remarks, page 10).”
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims renders them subject matter eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the amendments, which have been addressed in the updated rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686