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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present action filed on 06/07/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
a metaverse space providing unit configured to provide a metaverse space (Claim 1);
a data collection unit configured to collect life-logging data (Claim 1);
a mental state estimation unit configured to utilize an artificial intelligence model to estimate a mental state of the child (Claim 1), wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to extract facial features of the child with developmental disabilities from image data (Claim 4), wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to estimate a second mental state of the child with developmental disabilities from voice data of the child (Claim 5), wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to calculate a biometric variance between a daily activity and an activity during the treatment of the child with developmental disabilities based on the biometric data, and estimate a third mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the calculated biometric variance (Claim 6), wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to estimate an average activity state of the child (Claim 7);
a treatment service providing unit configured to provide the cognitive and social treatment service of the child (Claim 1), wherein the treatment service providing unit is further configured to group children with developmental disabilities who have similar social and cognitive skills to those of the child with developmental disabilities among a plurality of children with developmental disabilities who participates in the metaverse space (Claim 8), wherein the treatment service providing unit is further configured to evaluate a performance score and a treatment effect of the child with developmental disabilities based on the user data and cognitive and social response data of the child (Claim 9), the treatment service providing unit is further configured to control a child character of the device of the child with developmental disabilities to automatically execute a program satisfying the predetermined conditions (Claim 10), the treatment service providing unit is further configured to provide, to the device of the parents, a trial service (Claim 15);
a treatment result providing unit configured to provide a treatment result report (Claim 1);
a therapist function providing unit configured to provide a therapist-dedicated interface to the device of the therapist that needs to be involved in the treatment of the child with developmental disabilities (Claim 12);
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.
a metaverse space providing unit (element 100, Fig. 1),
a data collection unit (element 110, Fig. 1),
a mental state estimation unit (element 120, Fig. 1),
a treatment service providing unit (element 130, Fig. 1),
a treatment result providing unit (element 150, Fig. 1),
a therapist function providing unit (element 140, Fig. 1),
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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1, 16, and 17 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed to a server (i.e., machine), a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., machine), respectively. Dependent Claims 2-15 are also directed to a server and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1, which is indicative of the inventive concept, recites the following:
A treatment service mediation server that provides a cognitive and social treatment service of a child with developmental disabilities, comprising:
a metaverse space providing unit configured to provide a metaverse space for the cognitive and social treatment service to a device of the child with developmental disabilities and a device of a therapist;
a data collection unit configured to collect life-logging data including user data and cognitive and social response data of the child with developmental disabilities during a diagnostic process in the metaverse space;
a mental state estimation unit configured to utilize an artificial intelligence model to estimate a mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the collected life-logging data;
a treatment service providing unit configured to provide the cognitive and social treatment service of the child with developmental disabilities to the device of the child based on the estimated mental state;
and a treatment result providing unit configured to provide a treatment result report on the cognitive and social treatment service to a device of parents of the child.
The limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, and/or mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions – in this case collecting data associated with a child, estimating a mental state of the child, providing the cognitive and social treatment service, and providing a treatment result report) e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 13-15 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites the user data includes image data, and the cognitive and social response data includes activity information and the cognitive and social response data includes activity information, Claim 3 recites the life-logging data further includes biometric data, Claim 4 recites estimating a first mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on muscle activity caused by changes in distance between the extracted facial features, Claim 5 recites estimating a second mental state from voice data, Claim 6 recites calculating a biometric variance between a daily activity and an activity during the treatment of the child based on the biometric data, and estimating a third mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the calculated biometric variance, Claim 7 recites estimating an average activity state of the child based on the biometric data and the cognitive and social response data, Claim 8 recites grouping children with developmental disabilities who have similar social and cognitive skills to those of the child with developmental disabilities among a plurality of children with developmental disabilities who participates in the metaverse space, and providing information about the group to the a therapist, Claim 9 recites evaluating a performance score and a treatment effect of the child with developmental disabilities based on the user data and cognitive and social response data of the child, Claim 10 recites when a treatment session for the child does not proceed under predetermined conditions, controlling a child character of child, Claim 13 recites at least one of sending a message, a function of giving a point, a function of giving an item, a portal shift function, a function of inputting a team score, a function of setting a timer, and a function of setting a motion in a cyberbullying situation, Claim 14 recites details regarding what the treatment result report includes, Claim 15 recites after the treatment of the child is finished, providing a trial service which enables the parents to simulate a treatment activity of the child with developmental disabilities. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent Claims 2-15 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1 and 16-17.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 16-17 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the metaverse space providing unit, metaverse space, device, data collection unit, mental state estimation unit, artificial intelligence model, treatment service providing unit, and treatment result providing unit of Claim 1, the metaverse space, device, and artificial intelligence model of Claim 16, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer program, metaverse space, device, and artificial intelligence model of Claim 17) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer parts. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the metaverse space providing unit 100, the data collection unit 110, the mental state estimation unit 120, the treatment service providing unit 130, the therapist function providing unit 140, and the treatment result providing unit 150 may be program modules in the form of operating systems, application program modules, and other program modules stored in the memory modules (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 0033). Herein, the metaverse space may include an activity space where the device of the child with developmental disabilities performs a mission of the device of the therapist and an observation space where an activity of the device of the child with developmental disabilities is evaluated and fed back [0036]. The metaverse space 20 may provide a chat interface where the device of the child with developmental disabilities can chat with other devices (e.g., a device of another child with developmental disabilities who participates in the metaverse space, the device of the therapist, etc.) [0038]. The mental state estimation unit 120 may estimate a mental state of the child with developmental disabilities from the life-logging data through an artificial intelligence model [0049]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-15 also recite additional elements. Claim 2 recites the previously recited device and metaverse space and specifies the cognitive and social response data includes activity information of a child character controlled by the device of the child in the metaverse space. Claim 3 recites a new additional element of a wearable device and specifies the life-logging data includes biometric data collected form a wearable device worn by the child. Claim 4 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit extracts facial features of the child and estimates a first mental state of the child based on muscle activity. Claim 5 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit estimates a second mental state of the child from voice data. Claim 6 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit calculates a biometric variance between a daily activity and an activity during treatment. Claim 7 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit estimates an average activity state of the child based on biometric data and cognitive and social response data. Claim 8 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit, metaverse space, and device and specifies the unit groups children with similar social and cognitive skills among a plurality of children participating in the metaverse space and provides information to the therapist device. Claim 9 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit and specifies the unit evaluates performance score and a treatment effect of the child based on the user data and cognitive and social response data. Claim 10 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit and specifies the unit controls a child character of the device to automatically execute a program satisfying predetermined conditions when a treatment session does not proceed under the predetermined conditions. Claim 11 recites the previously recited metaverse space and device and specifies the metaverse space includes an activity space where the device of the child with developmental disabilities performs a mission of the device of the therapist and an observation space where an activity of the device of the child with developmental disabilities is evaluated and fed back. Claim 12 recites new additional elements of a therapist function providing unit and a therapist-dedicated interface and specifies the therapist function providing unit provides a therapist-dedicated interface to the device of the therapist that needs to be involved in the treatment of the child. Claim 13 recites the previously recited therapist-dedicated interface and device and specifies the interface includes at least one function including sending a message to the device of the child. Claim 14 recites the metaverse space and specifies the what the treatment report includes, including access time for which the device of the child accesses the metaverse state during a treatment session. Claim 15 recites the treatment service providing unit and device and specifies after the treatment is finished the unit provides, to the device of the parents, a trial service. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, whether considered separately or as an ordered combination, do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the metaverse space providing unit, metaverse space, device, data collection unit, mental state estimation unit, artificial intelligence model, treatment service providing unit, and treatment result providing unit of Claim 1, the metaverse space, device, and artificial intelligence model of Claim 16, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer program, metaverse space, device, and artificial intelligence model of Claim 17 amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying
"apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly
more"). For these reasons, the independent Claims 1 and 16-17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-15 recite previously recited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the previously recited device and metaverse space and specifies the cognitive and social response data includes activity information of a child character controlled by the device of the child in the metaverse space. Claim 4 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit extracts facial features of the child and estimates a first mental state of the child based on muscle activity. Claim 5 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit estimates a second mental state of the child from voice data. Claim 6 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit calculates a biometric variance between a daily activity and an activity during treatment. Claim 7 recites the previously recited mental state estimation unit and specifies the unit estimates an average activity state of the child based on biometric data and cognitive and social response data. Claim 8 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit, metaverse space, and device and specifies the unit groups children with similar social and cognitive skills among a plurality of children participating in the metaverse space and provides information to the therapist device. Claim 9 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit and specifies the unit evaluates performance score and a treatment effect of the child based on the user data and cognitive and social response data. Claim 10 recites the previously recited treatment service providing unit and specifies the unit controls a child character of the device to automatically execute a program satisfying predetermined conditions when a treatment session does not proceed under the predetermined conditions. Claim 11 recites the previously recited metaverse space and device and specifies the metaverse space includes an activity space where the device of the child with developmental disabilities performs a mission of the device of the therapist and an observation space where an activity of the device of the child with developmental disabilities is evaluated and fed back. Claim 13 recites the previously recited therapist-dedicated interface and device and specifies the interface includes at least one function including sending a message to the device of the child. Claim 14 recites the metaverse space and specifies the what the treatment report includes, including access time for which the device of the child accesses the metaverse state during a treatment session. Claim 15 recites the treatment service providing unit and device and specifies after the treatment is finished the unit provides, to the device of the parents, a trial service.
Claims 3 and 12 recite new additional elements. Claim 3 recites a new additional element of a wearable device and specifies the life-logging data includes biometric data collected form a wearable device worn by the child. Claim 12 recites new additional elements of a therapist function providing unit and a therapist-dedicated interface and specifies the therapist function providing unit provides a therapist-dedicated interface to the device of the therapist that needs to be involved in the treatment of the child.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Hence, Claims 2-15 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a 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, 3, 9, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wall discloses the following:
A treatment service mediation server that provides a cognitive and social treatment service of a child with developmental disabilities, comprising: (Wall discloses FIG. 35 shows a diagram of a platform for providing digital therapy to a subject as described herein, including the mobile device software and server software [0270].)
a metaverse space providing unit configured to provide a metaverse space for the cognitive and social treatment service to a device of the child with developmental disabilities and a device of a therapist; (Wall discloses said virtual reality experience comprises a displayed virtual person or character and said device further comprises determining an emotion expressed by said virtual person or character within said virtual reality experience [0065]. [S]aid digital therapy comprises a virtual reality experience [0037]. The Examiner interprets the virtual reality experience as a metaverse space.)
a data collection unit configured to collect life-logging data including user data and cognitive and social response data of the child with developmental disabilities during a diagnostic process in the metaverse space; (Wall discloses digital diagnostics data in the system can comprise data and meta-data collected from the patient, or a caregiver, or a party that is independent of the assessed individual. In some instances, the collected data can comprise monitoring behaviors, observations, judgments, or assessments made by a party other than the individual [0024]. The Examiner interprets behavior and judgement data as being cognitive and social response data.)
a mental state estimation unit configured to utilize an artificial intelligence model to estimate a mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the collected life-logging data; (Wall discloses the digital diagnostic uses the data collected by the system about the patient, which can include complimentary diagnostic data captured outside the digital diagnostic, with analysis from tools such as…artificial intelligence…to assess or diagnose the patient's condition. The digital diagnostic can also provide an assessment of a patient's change in state or performance, directly or indirectly via data and meta-data that can be analyzed and evaluated by tools such as… artificial intelligence…to provide feedback into the system to improve or refine the diagnoses and potential therapeutic interventions [0025].)
a treatment service providing unit configured to provide the cognitive and social treatment service of the child with developmental disabilities to the device of the child based on the estimated mental state; (Wall discloses a personalized treatment regimen comprising digital therapeutics, non-digital therapeutics, pharmaceuticals, or any combination thereof. Digital therapeutics can comprise instructions, feedback, activities or interactions provided to the patient or caregiver by the system. Examples include suggested behaviors, activities, games or interactive sessions with system software and/or third party devices…the personalized treatment regimen is adaptive, for example, dynamically updating or reconfiguring its therapies based on captured feedback from the subject during ongoing therapy and/or additional relevant information (e.g., results from an autism evaluation) [0028].)
and a treatment result providing unit configured to provide a treatment result report on the cognitive and social treatment service… (Wall discloses digital devices with processors and associated software configured to:…capture interaction and feedback data that identify relative levels of efficacy, compliance and response resulting from the therapeutic interventions; and perform data analysis, including at least one or machine learning, …and statistical models to assess user data and user profiles to further personalize, improve or assess efficacy of the therapeutic interventions [0432].)
Wall does not disclose the displaying of results being to a parent’s device which is Yoon:
…to a device of parents of the child. (Yoon teaches after parental login of the present invention, the main screen provides … treatment subject information, therapist (treatment institution) information, therapist (treatment institution) registration, treatment reservation function, and provides test execution, treatment execution, examination result, and treatment result functions (p. 12, ¶ 0004).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate presenting the outcome of the treatment to the parents of the child as taught by Yoon. This modification would create a system and method capable of allowing parents to easily test and treat developmental disabilities at home (see Yoon, p. 2, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 16, this claim recites substantially similar limitations to those described in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Wall further discloses:
A treatment service mediation method that provides a cognitive and social treatment service of a child with developmental disabilities (Wall discloses disclosed herein are platforms, systems, devices, methods, and media that provide a technical solution to this long-standing problem by incorporating diagnostic data into the therapeutic design [0006].)
Regarding Claim 17, this claim recites substantially similar limitations to those described in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Wall further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program including a sequence of instructions for providing a cognitive and social treatment service of a child with developmental disabilities (Wall discloses a computing device comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a computer program…[0032].)
Regarding Claim 3, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
wherein the life-logging data further includes biometric data collected from a wearable device worn by the child with developmental during treatment. (Wall discloses the data and meta-data can be either actively or passively collected in digital format via one or more digital devices such as… wearable digital monitors [0024]. The passive source can include sensors embedded in smart toys (for example, fine motor function, gross motor function, focus/attention span and problem solving skills) and wearable devices (for example, level of activity, quantity/quality of rest) [0437].)
Regarding Claim 9, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
the treatment service providing unit is further configured to evaluate a performance score and a treatment effect of the child with developmental disabilities (Wall discloses various modes of feedback is provided to the subject (e.g., the child), parents or caregivers, interventionists, clinicians, or any combination thereof. The system can be configured to provide progress feedback to clinicians, for example, through a healthcare provider portal as described herein. Feedback can include performance scores on various activities or games, indicating whether an emotional response is correct, explanation of incorrect answers, improvements or progress (e.g., progress in terms of emotion recognition activities over the past month), or other observations or commentary [0449].)
based on the user data and cognitive and social response data of the child with developmental disabilities who is being treated according to the cognitive and social treatment service. (Wall discloses digital diagnostics in the device can comprise of data and meta-data collected from the patient, or a caregiver, or a party that is independent of the individual being assessed. In some instances the collected data can comprise monitoring behaviors, observations, judgements, or assessments may be made by a party other than the individual. In further instances, the assessment can comprise an adult performing an assessment or provide data for an assessment of a child or juvenile [0435].)
Regarding Claim 14, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
wherein the treatment result report includes at least one of an access time for which the device of the child with developmental disabilities accesses the metaverse space during a treatment session, an utterance time of the child with developmental disabilities, total points acquired by a child character controlled by the child with developmental disabilities, activity information, and information about emotions and social skills of the child with developmental disabilities. (Wall discloses the display screen optionally provides instructions for the patient to respond to the parent. The patient does not smile back at his parent, and the inward facing camera captures this response in one or more images or video. The images and/or videos and a timeline or time-stamped sequence of social interactions are then saved on the device (and optionally uploaded or saved on a remote network or cloud). In this case, the parent's smile is labeled as a “smile”, and the patient's lack of response is labeled as “non-responsive” or “no smile”. Thus, this particular social interaction is determined to be a failure to engage in smile-reciprocity [0680-682]. The child's determined failure in engaging in smile-reciprocity is interpreted as information about the emotions and social skills.)
Regarding Claim 15, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
after the treatment of the child with developmental disabilities is finished,… (Wall discloses after performing the therapies over the given time frame,… a report can be sent from the digital device 2310 to the therapy module 2334 [0461].)
…the treatment service providing unit is further configured to provide, to the device of the parents, to the device of the parents, a trial service enables the parents to simulate a treatment activity of the child with developmental disabilities. (Wall discloses a parent or caregiver is given access to the therapeutic device and registers/logs into a personal account for the mobile application. The mobile application provides selectable modes for the patient including an activity mode comprising emotion elicitation activities, emotion recognition activities, and unstructured play [0666]. The caregiver moderates the digital therapy session, wherein the child uses the smartphone to walk around their home, office, or other familiar environment, and “find” or try to elicit an emotion that is prompted by audio in-app. Often, in the home setting, the emotion will be generated by the caregiver; the instructions to the caregiver will be to replicate the requested emotion or to intentionally provide the wrong face [0668]. The Examiner interprets the caregiver as the parent.)
The sole difference between the primary reference and the claimed subject matter is that Wall do not disclose the trial service being provided to the parent after the therapy, although it does disclose sending a report to the digital device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporate providing parents with a trial service after the child’s therapy is complete into the system of Wall for providing parents with an interface for the therapy service as there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the need of allowing caregiver to monitor their child’s therapy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the order of when to provide the parent with this service with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1) and Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A) in view of Pillitteri et al. (US 20220254506 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
wherein the user data includes image data including a facial expression and an upper body movement of the child with developmental disabilities and voice data of the child with developmental disabilities, (Wall discloses analysis module comprises a facial recognition module for detecting the face of said person within said video or image [0044]. The video, image, and/or sound recording is analyzed using analysis classifier that determines an emotion associated with a facial expression (or other social cue) of the person interacted with by the individual in the augmented reality environment [0311]. Examples of active data collection comprises devices, devices or methods for …recording body or appendage movement, …[0436]. The Examiner interprets appendage movement being upper body movement. The sounds and/or voices recorded in the video files may also be analyzed. The analysis may infer a context of the subject's behavior. The sound/voice analysis may infer a feeling of the subject [0377].)
and the cognitive and social response data includes activity information of a child character controlled by the device of the child with developmental disabilities… (Wall discloses types of data collected and utilized by the device can include…active or passive data streams from user interaction with activities, games or software features of the device…Such data can also represent patient or caregiver interaction with the device, for example, when performing recommended activities. Specific examples include data from a user's interaction with the device's device or mobile app that captures aspects of the user's behaviors, profile, activities, interactions with the software device, interactions with games, frequency of use, session time, options or features selected, and content and activity preferences [0456].)
Wall and Yoon do not teach determining the activity of the child in the metaverse space which is met by Pillitteri:
…of a child character controlled by the device of the child with developmental disabilities in the metaverse space. (Pillitteri teaches the feedback can include a third-party view of the user in the extended reality simulation, the movement information of the user within the extended reality simulation, sound from the user, video of the user capture by camera 506 or other feedback indicating a parameter of the user’s activity in attempting the instructions or exercise, etc. [0126].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate determining the activity of the child in the metaverse space as taught by Pillitteri. This modification would create a system and method capable of encouraging the child to make progress in the therapeutic tasks to achieve success (see Pillitteri, ¶ 0136).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1), Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A), and Pillitteri et al. (US 20220254506 A1) in view of Tablan et al. (US 20210383913 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wall, Yoon, and Pillitteri teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Wall further discloses:
wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to extract facial features of the child with developmental disabilities from image data… (Wall discloses analysis module comprises a facial recognition module for detecting the face of said person within said video or image [0044]. The video, image, and/or sound recording is analyzed using analysis classifier that determines an emotion associated with a facial expression (or other social cue) of the person interacted with by the individual in the augmented reality environment [0311].)
and estimate a first mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on muscle activity caused by changes in distance between the extracted facial features. (Wall discloses the algorithms and classifiers described herein for detecting a “smile” or “emotion” can be trained to distinguish between genuine and polite smiles, which can be differentiated based on visual cues corresponding to the engagement of eye muscles in genuine smiles…[0682]. Said analysis module comprises a facial recognition module for detecting the face of said person within said video or image …said image analysis module comprises a classifier trained using machine learning to categorize said face as exhibiting said emotion [0067-68]. The Examiner interprets the emotion of the person as the mental state.)
Wall, Yoon, and Pillitteri do not teach data being associated with utterance information of the therapist which is met by Tablan:
…associated with utterance information of the therapist among the image data,… (Tablan teaches the utterances 118 from a therapy session may be divided 120 into therapist utterances 118′ and patient utterances 118″. Each utterance may be automatically identified as deriving from either the patient or the therapist … Where a text transcript and/or individual utterances are produced without prior diarization of the audio data, the utterances may subsequently be associated with a particular speaker by any suitable method in order to produce e.g. patient utterances 118″, and therapist utterances 118′ [0116-117].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate data being associated with utterance information of the therapist as taught by Tablan. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing improvements to therapy and automatic quality assurance of therapy sessions (see Tablan, ¶ 0001).
Regarding Claim 5, Wall, Yoon, Pillitteri, and Tablan teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 4 above. Wall further discloses:
wherein the mental state estimation unit is further configured to estimate a second mental state of the child with developmental disabilities from voice data of the child with developmental disabilities… (Wall discloses the sounds and/or voices recorded in the video files may also be analyzed. The analysis may infer a context of the subject's behavior. The sound/voice analysis may infer a feeling of the subject. The analysis of a video of a subject, performed by a human and/or by a machine, can yield feature values for the features of interest, which can then be encoded appropriately for input into the prediction module. A prediction of the subject’s developmental disorder may then be generated based on a fitting of the subject's feature values to the assessment model constructed using training data [0377].)
Wall, Yoon, and Pillitteri do not teach data being associated with utterance information of the therapist which is met by Tablan:
…associated with the utterance information of the therapist among the voice data. (Tablan teaches the utterances 118 from a therapy session may be divided 120 into therapist utterances 118′ and patient utterances 118″. Each utterance may be automatically identified as deriving from either the patient or the therapist … Where a text transcript and/or individual utterances are produced without prior diarization of the audio data, the utterances may subsequently be associated with a particular speaker by any suitable method in order to produce e.g. patient utterances 118″, and therapist utterances 118′ [0116-117].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate data being associated with utterance information of the therapist as taught by Tablan. This modification would create a system and method capable of providing improvements to therapy and automatic quality assurance of therapy sessions (see Tablan, ¶ 0001).
Claims 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1) and Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A), in view of Manteau-Rao et al. (US 20230360772 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 3 above. Wall further discloses:
…and estimate a third mental state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the calculated biometric [variance]. (Wall discloses the passive source can include sensors embedded in smart toys (for example, fine motor function, gross motor function, focus/attention span and problem solving skills) and wearable devices (for example, level of activity, quantity/quality of rest) [0437]. Said analysis module comprises a facial recognition module for detecting the face of said person within said video or image…said image analysis module comprises a classifier trained using machine learning to categorize said face as exhibiting said emotion [0067-68]. The Examiner interprets the emotion of the person as the mental state and the facial expressions as the biometric data.)
Wall and Yoon do not disclose the following limitations met by Manteau-Rao:
the mental state estimation unit is further configured to calculate a…variance between a daily activity and an activity during the treatment of the child with developmental disabilities based on the biometric data, (Manteau-Rao teaches if biometric data indicates more intense emotions, e.g., above a threshold like 20% higher, another therapy may be needed [0118]. [I]n response to determining the discrepancy between the normalized biometric measurement and the normalized intensity score is greater than a predetermined threshold: (a) adjusting the intensity score based on the normalized biometric measurement;… (Claim 9). The Examiner interprets the daily activity being the threshold, or average level, and the activity during the treatment being the biometric data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate calculating a variance between daily activity and an activity during treatment as taught by Manteau-Rao. This modification would create a system and method capable of determining the intensity level of a patient’s mental state (see Manteau-Rao, ¶ 0032).
Regarding Claim 8, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
the treatment service providing unit is further configured to group children with developmental disabilities who have similar social and cognitive skills to those of the child with developmental disabilities…information about the group (Wall discloses an informative display can provide symptoms of the disorder that can be displayed as a graph depicting covariance of symptoms displayed by the subject and symptoms displayed by the average population. A list of characteristics associated with a particular diagnosis can be displayed with confidence values, correlation coefficients, or other means for displaying the relationship between a subject's performance and the average population or a population comprised of those with a similar disorders [0489].)
…among a plurality of children with developmental disabilities who participates in the metaverse space,… (Wall discloses each sample of data may correspond to a subject in the plurality of subjects. Samples may be grouped according to subject-specific dimensions [0292]. The classifier model can be trained on a number of large existing facial expression recognition databases, as well as additional data gathered from other participants or subjects [0448].)
Wall and Yoon do not teach the following limitations met by Manteau-Rao:
and provide information …to the device of the therapist. (Manteau-Rao teaches the VRCT engine may alert the supervisor or therapist who is administering the VR therapy that, e.g., the VR therapy exercises/activities may not be helpful. For instance, a therapist device such as a phone, tablet, computer, server, or other network-connected device may be sent an alert and/or notification that the second biometric reading indicates, when compared to the first biometric measurement, that the patient's emotional state is not improving [0141].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate a therapist providing receiving patient information as taught by Manteau-Rao. This modification would create a system and method capable of improving therapy engagement, boosting retention, reducing drop-out, and promoting therapy continuity for the patient (see Manteau-Rao, ¶ 0068).
Regarding Claim 11, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
…an activity space where the device of the child with developmental disabilities performs a mission… (Wall discloses an emotion guessing game stores previous images that the child has evaluated mixed with stock face images (from pre-reviewed sources). The goal of this activity is to (a) review images that were not evaluated correctly by the children and have the caregiver correct it and (b) reinforce and remind the child of their correct choices to improve retention [0670].)
and an observation space where an activity of the device of the child with developmental disabilities is evaluated and fed back. (Wall discloses the caregiver moderates the digital therapy session, wherein the child uses the smartphone to walk around their home, office, or other familiar environment, and “find” or try to elicit an emotion that is prompted by audio in-app. Often, in the home setting, the emotion will be generated by the caregiver; the instructions to the caregiver will be to replicate the requested emotion or to intentionally provide the wrong face…The screen then provides the child real-time audio and visual feedback correctly labeling the emotional expression displayed on the face [0668].)
Wall and Yoon do not teach the following limitations met by Manteau-Rao:
…a mission of the device of the therapist… (Manteau-Rao teaches a VR Cognitive Therapy platform can present a virtual therapist avatar that may guide a patient through one or more VRCT activities such as “Catch It,” Check It,” and/or “Change It” exercises [0068].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate a therapist providing a mission to the patient as taught by Manteau-Rao. This modification would create a system and method capable of improving therapy engagement, boosting retention, reducing drop-out, and promoting therapy continuity for the patient (see Manteau-Rao, ¶ 0068).
Regarding Claim 12, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall and Yoon do not teach the following limitations met by Manteau-Rao:
a therapist function providing unit configured to provide a therapist-dedicated interface to the device of the therapist that needs to be involved in the treatment of the child with developmental disabilities. (Manteau-Rao teaches the VRCT engine may alert the supervisor or therapist who is administering the VR therapy that, e.g., the VR therapy exercises/activities may not be helpful. For instance, a therapist device such as a phone, tablet, computer, server, or other network-connected device may be sent an alert and/or notification that the second biometric reading indicates, when compared to the first biometric measurement, that the patient's emotional state is not improving [0141].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate a therapist interface provided to the device of the therapist as taught by Manteau-Rao. This modification would create a system and method capable of improving therapy engagement, boosting retention, reducing drop-out, and promoting therapy continuity for the patient (see Manteau-Rao, ¶ 0068).
Regarding Claim 13, Wall, Yoon, and Manteau-Rao teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 12 above. Wall and Yoon do not teach the following limitations met by Manteau-Rao:
wherein the therapist-dedicated interface includes at least one of a function of sending a message to the device of the child with developmental disabilities, a function of giving a point, a function of giving an item, a portal shift function, a function of inputting a team score, a function of setting a timer, and a function of setting a motion in a cyberbullying situation. (Manteau-Rao teaches providing, via the virtual reality platform, a congratulatory message based on the second intensity value; and in response to determining the second intensity value is not less than the first intensity value, providing, via the virtual reality platform, an appreciation message based on the second intensity value (Claim 2).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate sending a message to the device of the patient as taught by Manteau-Rao. This modification would create a system and method capable of improving therapy engagement, boosting retention, reducing drop-out, and promoting therapy continuity for the patient (see Manteau-Rao, ¶ 0068).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1), Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A), and Manteau-Rao et al. (US 20230360772 A1) in view of Pillitteri et al. (US 20220254506 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Wall, Yoon, and Manteau-Rao teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Wall further discloses:
the mental state estimation unit is further configured to estimate an average activity state of the child with developmental disabilities based on the biometric data and the cognitive and social response data of the child with developmental disabilities. (Wall discloses types of data collected and utilized by the device can include…active or passive data streams from user interaction with activities, games or software features of the device, for example. Such data can also represent patient or caregiver interaction with the device, for example, when performing recommended activities. Specific examples include data from a user's interaction with the device's device or mobile app that captures aspects of the user's behaviors, profile, activities, interactions with the software device, interactions with games, frequency of use, session time, options or features selected, and content and activity preferences Data may also include streams from various third party devices such as activity monitors, games or interactive content [0456].)
Wall and Yoon do not teach the following limitations met by Pillitteri:
…to estimate an average activity state… (Pillitteri teaches the feedback can include a third-party view of the user in the extended reality simulation, the movement information of the user within the extended reality simulation, sound from the user, video of the user capture by camera 506 or other feedback indicating a parameter of the user's activity in attempting the instructions or exercise, etc. [0126].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate determining the activity of the child in the metaverse space as taught by Pillitteri. This modification would create a system and method capable of encouraging the child to make progress in the therapeutic tasks to achieve success (see Pillitteri, ¶ 0136).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 20210133509 A1) and Yoon et al. (KR 20210079232 A) in view of Williams et al. (US 20180329486 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Wall and Yoon teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Wall further discloses:
when a treatment session for the child with developmental disabilities does not proceed under…conditions, the treatment service providing unit is further configured to… the child with developmental disabilities (Wall discloses various modes of feedback is provided to the subject (e.g., the child), parents or caregivers, interventionists, clinicians, or any combination thereof. The system can be configured to provide progress feedback to clinicians, for example, through a healthcare provider portal as described herein. Feedback can include performance scores on various activities or games, indicating whether an emotional response is correct, explanation of incorrect answers, improvements or progress… [0449].)
Wall and Yoon do not teach taking over the character to execute a program which is met by Williams:
…session… does not proceed under predetermined conditions,…control a…character of the device of to automatically execute a program satisfying the predetermined conditions. (Williams teaches a virtual reality system is provided which allows a computer to take control of a user's avatar within a virtual environment whenever the avatar's user leaves the game. The computer follows prescribed instructions to control the avatar [0007]. The Examiner interprets a user leaving the game as the session not proceeding under predetermined conditions.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for receiving patient data of a child with developmental disabilities, determining the mental state of the patient, and providing treatment in the form of a metaverse space as disclosed by Wall to incorporate taking control of the character when predetermined conditions are not met as taught by Williams. This modification would create a system and method capable of keeping the user on the right track so should they decide to resume the game, they can continue the activity (see Williams, ¶ 0003-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 H 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681