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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, PCT/IB2023/050566 and SG10202200711S, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed applications fail to provide sufficient written description for “a task construction module configured to construct tasks for capturing acoustic, linguistic, and affective characteristics of speech of a user”, “a stimulus output module configured to receive data from the task construction module, wherein the stimulus output module includes one or more stimuli and a basis for the constructed tasks to be presented to a user to elicit a trigger of one or more types of user behavior, wherein the triggers are in the form of input responses”, “a response intake module configured to present, to the user, the one or more stimuli and the basis for the constructed tasks, from the stimulus output module, and, in response, receive corresponding responses in one or more formats”, “feature constructor configured to define features, for each constructed task, wherein the features are defined in terms of learnable heuristic weighted tasks”, “a feature extractor configured to extract one or more defined features from the received corresponding responses correlative to the constructed tasks using a learnable heuristic weighted model considering at least one task selected from a group of ranked constructed tasks”, “a feature fusion module configured to fuse two or more defined features to obtain fused features”, and “an autoencoder configured to define a relationship, using the fused features” in claim 1, “a first order ranking module configured to rank the constructed tasks in order of difficulty to assign a first order of weights to each constructed task” in claims 3 and 4, “a second order ranking module configured to rank complexity of the constructed tasks in order of complexity to assign a second order of weights to each constructed task” in claim 5, “a first vector engine configured to determine constituent vectors to determine a weighted base state in correlation to such stimulus vectors” in claim 9, “a passage reading module configured to allow users to perform tasks correlative to reading passages for a pre-determine time” in claim 10, “an audio module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claims 17 and 18, “a text module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claim 19, and “an audio module configured to, use extracted features in acoustic feature embeddings from pre-trained models, compare the extracted features on a spectral domain, determine vocal tract co-ordination features, determine recurrent quantification analysis features, determine Bigram count features and bigram duration features correlated to speech landmarks, and fuse the features in an autoencoder” in claim 20 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations. Thus, claims 1-20 do not gain benefit of priority to PCT/IB2023/050566 and SG10202200711S. Therefore, claims 1-20 have an effective filing date of 24 July 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 6, 7, and 11-12H include elements, if not the entire drawing, that are so blurry as to be illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are inconsistently formatted. Some limitations end with commas, while others end semi-colons. Uniformity is recommended.
Claim 1 should have a colon following “a feature module comprising” not a comma.
Multiple claims include a limitation that recites “at least one of” followed by a comma. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 6 includes the typo of repeating “for a” twice at the end of the claim.
Claim 20 should have a colon following “an audio module configured to” not a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 task construction module configured to construct tasks for capturing acoustic, linguistic, and affective characteristics of speech of a user” in claim 1.
“a stimulus output module configured to receive data from the task construction module, wherein the stimulus output module includes one or more stimuli and a basis for the constructed tasks to be presented to a user to elicit a trigger of one or more types of user behavior, wherein the triggers are in the form of input responses” in claim 1.
“a response intake module configured to present, to the user, the one or more stimuli and the basis for the constructed tasks, from the stimulus output module, and, in response, receive corresponding responses in one or more formats” in claim 1.
“feature constructor configured to define features, for each constructed task, wherein the features are defined in terms of learnable heuristic weighted tasks” in claim 1.
“a feature extractor configured to extract one or more defined features from the received corresponding responses correlative to the constructed tasks using a learnable heuristic weighted model considering at least one task selected from a group of ranked constructed tasks” in claim 1.
“a feature fusion module configured to fuse two or more defined features to obtain fused features” in claim 1.
“an autoencoder configured to define a relationship, using the fused features” in claim 1.
“a first order ranking module configured to rank the constructed tasks in order of difficulty to assign a first order of weights to each constructed task” in claims 3 and 4.
“a second order ranking module configured to rank complexity of the constructed tasks in order of complexity to assign a second order of weights to each constructed task” in claim 5.
“a first vector engine configured to determine constituent vectors to determine a weighted base state in correlation to such stimulus vectors” in claim 9.
“a passage reading module configured to allow users to perform tasks correlative to reading passages for a pre-determine time” in claim 10.
“an audio module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claims 17 and 18.
“a text module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claim 19.
“an audio module configured to, use extracted features in acoustic feature embeddings from pre-trained models, compare the extracted features on a spectral domain, determine vocal tract co-ordination features, determine recurrent quantification analysis features, determine Bigram count features and bigram duration features correlated to speech landmarks, and fuse the features in an autoencoder” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim limitation “a task construction module configured to construct tasks for capturing acoustic, linguistic, and affective characteristics of speech of a user” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 23, 25-28, 101-104, and 108 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a task construction module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a stimulus output module configured to receive data from the task construction module, wherein the stimulus output module includes one or more stimuli and a basis for the constructed tasks to be presented to a user to elicit a trigger of one or more types of user behavior, wherein the triggers are in the form of input responses” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 2 which illustrates a stimulus output module as a non-descript black box and at least para. 23, 35, 97-101, 106, 107, 113-116, 160, 189, and 191 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a task construction module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a response intake module configured to present, to the user, the one or more stimuli and the basis for the constructed tasks, from the stimulus output module, and, in response, receive corresponding responses in one or more formats” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 2 which illustrates a response intake module as a non-descript black box and at least para. 23, 37, 106-111, 115, 116, 123, 189, and 191 of the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “feature constructor configured to define features, for each constructed task, wherein the features are defined in terms of learnable heuristic weighted tasks” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 23, 38-43, 129, 130, and 135 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a feature constructor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a feature extractor configured to extract one or more defined features from the received corresponding responses correlative to the constructed tasks using a learnable heuristic weighted model considering at least one task selected from a group of ranked constructed tasks” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 23, 30, 44-50, 52, 53, 56, 138-141, 145, 148, 168, and 187 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a feature extractor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a feature fusion module configured to fuse two or more defined features to obtain fused features” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 23, 47-51, 55, 144-147, and 160 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a feature fusion module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “an autoencoder configured to define a relationship, using the fused features” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 23, 47-51, 54, 145, 146, 160-163, 184, 188, and 195 of the specification. Similarly, Fig. 11 illustrates an autoencoder as a collection of generically-labeled black boxes (i.e., encoder, bottleneck, decoder, fused feature embeddings, classification layer). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitation “a first order ranking module configured to rank the constructed tasks in order of difficulty to assign a first order of weights to each constructed task” in claims 3 and 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 25, 26, and 102 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a first order ranking module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a second order ranking module configured to rank complexity of the constructed tasks in order of complexity to assign a second order of weights to each constructed task” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 27, 28, and 103 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a second order ranking module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a first vector engine configured to determine constituent vectors to determine a weighted base state in correlation to such stimulus vectors” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, Fig. 1 which illustrates a first vector engine as a non-descript black box and at least para. 33, 36, and 98 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a task construction module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a passage reading module configured to allow users to perform tasks correlative to reading passages for a pre-determine time” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 37, 123, and 124 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a passage reading module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an audio module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claims 17 and 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 47 and 48 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of an audio module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a text module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” in claim 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 49 and 50 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of a text module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an audio module configured to, use extracted features in acoustic feature embeddings from pre-trained models, compare the extracted features on a spectral domain, determine vocal tract co-ordination features, determine recurrent quantification analysis features, determine Bigram count features and bigram duration features correlated to speech landmarks, and fuse the features in an autoencoder” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. See, for example, at least para. 51 of the specification. It is also noted that the drawings are silent regarding any illustration of an audio module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, and 19, it is unclear how a “multi-modal system for voice-based mental health assessment” receives “textual response vectors” and includes a “text modality” that “outputs extracted high-level audio features” and “extracted high-level text features” nor how the constructed tasks are written tasks. In particular, it is unclear how a voice-based assessment includes text inputs (i.e., “textual response vectors” and “written tasks”) because “voice” is an audio input. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand using natural language processing, or some other form of speech-to-text conversion, to convert speech input into text to analyze what was spoken, but that functionality is distinct from these claim limitations while claim 2 explicitly identifies the tasks as “written tasks” and claim 8 explicitly includes text input claimed as “textual response vectors”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a task construction module configured to construct tasks for capturing acoustic, linguistic, and affective characteristics of speech of a user” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a stimulus output module configured to receive data from the task construction module, wherein the stimulus output module includes one or more stimuli and a basis for the constructed tasks to be presented to a user to elicit a trigger of one or more types of user behavior, wherein the triggers are in the form of input responses” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a response intake module configured to present, to the user, the one or more stimuli and the basis for the constructed tasks, from the stimulus output module, and, in response, receive corresponding responses in one or more formats” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “feature constructor configured to define features, for each constructed task, wherein the features are defined in terms of learnable heuristic weighted tasks” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a feature extractor configured to extract one or more defined features from the received corresponding responses correlative to the constructed tasks using a learnable heuristic weighted model considering at least one task selected from a group of ranked constructed tasks” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a feature fusion module configured to fuse two or more defined features to obtain fused features” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an autoencoder configured to define a relationship, using the fused features” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a first order ranking module configured to rank the constructed tasks in order of difficulty to assign a first order of weights to each constructed task” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a second order ranking module configured to rank complexity of the constructed tasks in order of complexity to assign a second order of weights to each constructed task” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a first vector engine configured to determine constituent vectors to determine a weighted base state in correlation to such stimulus vectors” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a passage reading module configured to allow users to perform tasks correlative to reading passages for a pre-determine time” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an audio module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 19, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a text module configured with high-level feature extractors and at least an autoencoder-based feature fusion to classify emotions from one or more responses” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Regarding claim 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an audio module configured to, use extracted features in acoustic feature embeddings from pre-trained models, compare the extracted features on a spectral domain, determine vocal tract co-ordination features, determine recurrent quantification analysis features, determine Bigram count features and bigram duration features correlated to speech landmarks, and fuse the features in an autoencoder” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a product which falls under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A multi-modal system for voice-based mental health assessment with emotion stimulation, the system comprising:
a task construction module configured to construct tasks for capturing acoustic, linguistic, and affective characteristics of speech of a user;
a stimulus output module configured to receive data from the task construction module, wherein the stimulus output module includes one or more stimuli and a basis for the constructed tasks to be presented to a user to elicit a trigger of one or more types of user behavior, wherein the triggers are in the form of input responses;
a response intake module configured to present, to the user, the one or more stimuli and the basis for the constructed tasks, from the stimulus output module, and, in response, receive corresponding responses in one or more formats;
a feature module comprising,
a feature constructor configured to define features, for each constructed task, wherein the features are defined in terms of learnable heuristic weighted tasks,
a feature extractor configured to extract one or more defined features from the received corresponding responses correlative to the constructed tasks using a learnable heuristic weighted model considering at least one task selected from a group of ranked constructed tasks,
a feature fusion module configured to fuse two or more defined features to obtain fused features; and
an autoencoder configured to define a relationship, using the fused features, between:
an audio modality of the feature fusion module working in consonance with the response intake module to extract high-level features, in the responses, and output extracted high-level text features, and
a text modality of the feature fusion module working in consonance with the response intake module to extract high-level features, in the responses, and output extracted high-level audio features, wherein the autoencoder is configured to receive extracted high-level text features and extracted high-level audio features, in parallel, from the audio modality and the text modality to output a shared representation feature data set for emotion classification correlative to the mental health assessment.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above, both individually and as a whole, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In particular, the steps/functions are directed towards eliciting and assessing an emotion which is wholly encompassed in managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The steps/functions of constructing tasks, receiving corresponding responses, and assessing the responses also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. It is further noted that the mere act of inputting a proof of purchase and then providing the purchased product (i.e., purchasing the activity pack and unlocking a first version of an electronic badge on the webpage, wherein the electronic badge is associated with the activity) is also a certain method of organizing human activity because it is merely a traditional commercial interaction. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Lastly, the functions of the feature module, the ranking modules, and first vector engine amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a multi-modal system (claim 1); a task construction module (claim 1); a stimulus output module (claim 1); a response intake module (claim 1); a feature module comprising a feature constructor, a feature extractor, and a feature fusion module (claim 1); an autoencoder (claim 1); a first order ranking module (claims 3 and 4); a second order ranking module (claim 5); a first vector engine (claim 9); a passage reading module (claim 10); a Geneva Minimalistic Acoustic Parameter Set (GeMAPS) (claims 11-14); a dedicated linguistic feature extractor (claim 16); an audio module (claims 17, 18, and 20); and a text module (claim 19). This is evidenced by the nature in which any additional element is described in the drawings and the specification. See, for example, Fig. 1, 2, and 11 which illustrate the elements as non-descript black boxes and stock icons while Fig. 13 and 14 illustrate the system performs a common process for inducing and detecting emotion. See also, for example, at least para. 77-89 of the specification which identifies that no aspect of the claimed system is particular, including the system itself (i.e., para. 77 recites that the “present disclosure may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product, and/or a mobile device program/product”). It is also noted that the elements of the system are merely disclosed in means-plus-language without any meaningful description. Similarly, in the event that the machine learning aspects are considered additional elements, the mere use of at least one machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithm, and artificial intelligence as a whole, does not improve computer functionality as it merely invokes the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to process information. It is also noted that limitations found in claims 11-14 are merely reciting the elements of the Geneva Minimalistic Acoustic Parameter Set (GeMAPS) for Voice Research and Affective Computing1, not some specific set of rules that improve the functioning of a computer. Thus, this evidences that components do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed as well as that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the system. The focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the judicial exception. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, the preamble of independent claim 1 recites that the claimed “multi-modal system” is for “voice-based mental health assessment with emotion stimulation” yet is silent regarding any actual steps or elements towards “mental health assessment”. At best, it is detecting an induced emotion. Regardless, even if mental health assessment is included in the claims, this is merely analysis of collected information which is wholly encompassed in the judicial exception. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although claims recite computer components associated with performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., storing, processing, and outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that Applicant believes the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. This also evidences that the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. See, for example, para. 77-89 which, at best, recite in results-based language that the additional elements are merely used. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. In contrast, the focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the judicial exception. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Thus, none of the additional elements offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Thus, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eyben et al. (US 2018/0308508 and US 10,991,384) discloses the pre-grant publication and patent associated with Eyben et al.’s development of GeMAPS.
Provost et al. (US 2020/0075040) discloses predicting a mood state of a user based on audio recording in the occurrence of an event. Provost includes using OpenSMILE to extract an eGeMAPS feature set.
Hamieh et al. (EP 4163830) discloses multi-modal systems using recurrent neural networks for automatic human emotion recognition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Eyben et al. (2016). The Geneva Minimalistic Acoustic Parameter Set (GeMAPS) for Voice Research and Affective Computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 7(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/taffc.2015.2457417