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
The action is in reply to the application filed 2024 August 09.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-26).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
initiating a mood evaluation request;
receiving user input indicative of current mood evaluation data in response to the mood evaluation request;
selecting a therapeutic path from a set of possible therapeutic paths based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data, wherein at least a first therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths is selected when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a first mood and a second therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths is selected when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a second mood;
generating a communication based at least in part on the selected therapeutic path; and
transmitting the communication, wherein the communication, when received, is presented via an output device.
These steps for mood management based on mood determination, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through managing mood behavior of a user. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claim 1, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of via an output device amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of via an output device, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-26 reciting particular aspects of creating an urgent report for the one or more patients such as
[Claim 2] wherein initiating the mood evaluation request occurs in response to completing a therapy milestone;
[Claim 3] wherein initiating the mood evaluation request automatically occurs after a period of time following a previous mood evaluation request;
[Claim 4] wherein selecting a therapeutic path from the set of possible therapeutic paths based on the current mood evaluation data further includes:
generating a current mood score based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data; and
selecting the selected therapeutic path based at least in part on the current mood score;
[Claim 5] identifying a subsequent therapy milestone after transmitting the communication; and
determining, based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data and in response to identifying the subsequent therapy milestone, whether to initiate a subsequent mood evaluation request;
[Claim 6] wherein identifying the subsequent therapy milestone includes identifying ceasing of a therapeutic exercise;
[Claim 7] wherein transmitting the communication includes initiating the therapeutic exercise or suggesting initiation of the therapeutic exercise;
[Claim 8] wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request includes deciding to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request, the method further comprising:
initiating the subsequent mood evaluation request;
receiving subsequent user input indicative of subsequent mood evaluation data in response to the subsequent mood evaluation request;
determining mood change information using the current mood evaluation data and the subsequent mood evaluation data;
storing the mood change information in association with the therapeutic exercise;
selecting a subsequent therapeutic path from a set of possible subsequent therapeutic paths based at least in part on the mood change information;
generating a subsequent communication based at least in part on the selected subsequent therapeutic path; and
transmitting the subsequent communication, wherein the subsequent communication, when received, is presented via the output device;
[Claim 9] determining an elapsed time since receiving the user input indicative of the current mood evaluation data, wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request is further based at least in part on the elapsed time;
[Claim 10] wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request includes determining to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a negative mood and wherein the elapsed time is lower than a threshold elapsed time;
[Claim 11] wherein receiving the user input indicative of current mood evaluation data includes storing the current mood evaluation data along with a timestamp of when the user input was received;
[Claim 12] determining an elapsed time since receiving the user input indicative of the current mood evaluation data, wherein selecting the therapeutic path is further based at least in part on the elapsed time;
[Claim 13] identifying a therapy milestone;
receiving therapeutic data associated with the therapy milestone; and
determining an elapsed time between identifying the therapy milestone and receiving the user input, wherein selecting the therapeutic path is further based at least in part on the therapeutic data and the elapsed time;
[Claim 14] wherein the therapy milestone is completion of a therapeutic exercise and wherein the therapeutic data is based at least in part on a past user input received during the therapeutic exercise;
[Claim 15] initiating a chatbot session, wherein receiving the user input and transmitting the communication occur via the chatbot session;
[Claim 16] wherein the current mood evaluation data is indicative of i) a positive mood, ii) a negative mood, or iii) a neutral mood;
[Claim 17] wherein the first therapeutic path includes a first number of nodes, wherein the second therapeutic path includes a second number of nodes, and wherein the first number of nodes is different than the second number of nodes;
[Claim 18] wherein the nodes of the first therapeutic path include the nodes of the second therapeutic path and at least one additional node;
[Claim 19] wherein each node of the first number of nodes and the second number of nodes includes a prompt for user input;
[Claim 20] wherein selecting the therapeutic path from the set of possible therapeutic paths based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data includes:
determining, for each therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths, a compliance score based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data, the compliance score being indicative of a likelihood that the user will complete the given therapeutic path; and
determining the selected therapeutic path based at least in part on the compliance scores;
[Claim 21] receiving user input associated with the therapeutic path;
updating the current mood evaluation data based at least in part on the user input; and
altering the therapeutic path based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data;
[Claim 22] wherein receiving the user input includes receiving a response to a prompt associated with a node of the therapeutic path, and wherein altering the therapeutic path includes, for a given node having a given expected subsequent node, selecting an alternate subsequent node based on the updated current mood evaluation data;
[Claim 23] wherein altering the therapeutic path includes changing a total number of nodes of the therapeutic path;
[Claim 24] wherein the therapeutic path includes a decision tree having a plurality of nodes;
[Claim 25] one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform the method of claim 1;
[Claim 26] A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause a data processing apparatus to perform the method of claim 1;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 8, 15, and 24-26 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 8 (via the output device); claim 15 (initiating a chatbot session; and, via the chatbot session); claim 24 (wherein the therapeutic path includes a decision tree having a plurality of nodes); claim 25 (one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform the method of claim 1); and, claim 26 (A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause a data processing apparatus to perform the method of claim 1) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 8 and 24-26 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 15 recites additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0123]-[0124] & [0128] which provides examples of off-the-shelf memory types and [0054] which provides examples of off-the-shelf devices. There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, it is evident that the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
Claims 1-16, 21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moturu et al. (US20210391083A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moturu discloses initiating a mood evaluation request ([0051] “Block S120 can additionally or alternatively function to administer surveys for collecting data […] For example, evaluative surveys assessing a patient's feelings”)
receiving user input indicative of current mood evaluation data in response to the mood evaluation request ([0023] “receiving a survey response dataset from the patient, the survey response dataset corresponding to the time period S120” [0052] “Furthermore, the survey response dataset preferably includes quantitative data, but can additionally or alternatively include qualitative data pertaining to a disorder-related state of the user”)
selecting a therapeutic path from a set of possible therapeutic paths based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data ([0032] “utilizing computer models for selecting therapeutic interventions tailored to a patient health state inferred from digital communication behavior”)
wherein at least a first therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths is selected when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a first mood and a second therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths is selected when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a second mood ([0078] “Block S140 preferably selects a therapeutic intervention type and/or category from a previously identified set of therapeutic intervention types and/or categories known to positively affect users in an adverse state of health similar or identical to the state of the user determined in Block S146.” [0079] “Block S140 can additionally or alternatively select or determine improvised new therapeutic intervention categories and therapeutic intervention types specific to the state of the user”)
generating a communication based at least in part on the selected therapeutic path ([0038] “selecting a personalized therapeutic intervention to be promoted to a patient during a time period (e.g., in real-time to address an emergency health state of the patient such as a suicidal episode), and/or after the time period (e.g., providing health tips over time to facilitate health education)”)
and transmitting the communication, wherein the communication, when received, is presented via an output device ([0087] “the user can be educated (e.g., using text and images rendered at a display) about different types of unhelpful thoughts”)
Regarding claim 2, Moturu discloses wherein initiating the mood evaluation request occurs in response to completing a therapy milestone ([0133] “transition into therapeutic intervention configured to satisfy goals for a second skill path (e.g., the mindfulness skill path)” [0134] “For example, the method 100 can include promoting, at a mobile computing device, a digital survey (e.g., asking how the patient feels after the therapeutic intervention)”)
Regarding claim 3, Moturu discloses wherein initiating the mood evaluation request automatically occurs after a period of time following a previous mood evaluation request ([0059] “In an example of Block S120, the survey dataset includes biweekly responses (e.g., for a period of 6 months) to the PHQ-9 survey”)
Regarding claim 4, Moturu discloses wherein selecting a therapeutic path from the set of possible therapeutic paths based on the current mood evaluation data further includes: generating a current mood score based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data ([0058] “As such, the survey response dataset can include quantitative scores of the user”)
and selecting the selected therapeutic path based at least in part on the current mood score ([0085] “In a first example of a breathing activity, as shown in FIG. 5C, the user can be guided to focus on his/her breath (e.g., in relation to a high PHQ-9 score)”)
Regarding claim 5, Moturu discloses identifying a subsequent therapy milestone after transmitting the communication ([0084] “prompting the user to use his/her senses (e.g., sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) to ground himself/herself.” [0095] “In one variation, the feature vectors can include features related to aggregate communication behavior […] timing (i.e., start and/or termination)”)
and determining, based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data and in response to identifying the subsequent therapy milestone, whether to initiate a subsequent mood evaluation request ([0053] “provision of a survey and/or reception of responses to a survey can be triggered upon detection of an event of the user” [0059] “responses to the PAM assessment […] at a termination time point”)
Regarding claim 6, Moturu discloses wherein identifying the subsequent therapy milestone includes identifying ceasing of a therapeutic exercise ([0095] “In one variation, the feature vectors can include features related to aggregate communication behavior […] timing (i.e., start and/or termination)”)
Regarding claim 7, Moturu discloses wherein transmitting the communication includes initiating the therapeutic exercise or suggesting initiation of the therapeutic exercise ([0077] “prompting a patient to play an augmented reality game requiring the patient to take a walk outside”)
Regarding claim 8, Moturu discloses wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request includes deciding to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request ([0143] “generating one or more evaluations can be performed continuously, in response to a condition”)
the method further comprising: initiating the subsequent mood evaluation request ([0142] “administering (e.g., automatically administering, automatically administering based on a trained model, etc.) digital surveys […] after promotion of a therapeutic intervention”)
receiving subsequent user input indicative of subsequent mood evaluation data in response to the subsequent mood evaluation request;
([0147] “The system 200 is preferably configured to facilitate reception and processing of a combination of active data (e.g., inputs provided by individuals, post-communication survey responses)”)
determining mood change information using the current mood evaluation data and the subsequent mood evaluation data ([0053] “As such, in variations, the time points of the time period can include regularly-spaced time points (e.g., time points spaced apart by an hour, by a day, by a week, by a month, etc.) with a suitable resolution for enabling detection of changes in a disorder-related state of the user.” [0102] “assigning a score to a survey response dataset for a patient (e.g., based upon one instance of survey response provision, based upon multiple instances of survey response provision), and comparing the score to the first threshold condition […] change in score greater than a given threshold”)
storing the mood change information in association with the therapeutic exercise ([0151] “private health state-related data can be stored temporarily on the user's mobile computing device in a locked and encrypted file folder on integrated or removable memory”)
selecting a subsequent therapeutic path from a set of possible subsequent therapeutic paths based at least in part on the mood change information ([0115] “in response to the change in health state below a health state threshold, dynamically modifying the dynamic care plan to include a second therapeutic intervention”)
generating a subsequent communication based at least in part on the selected subsequent therapeutic path ([0141] “updating the dynamic care plan based on the patient improvement metric (e.g., increasing the frequency of health tips prompting frequent communication with loved ones in response to an increased amount of patient digital communication from presenting such a health tip)”)
and transmitting the subsequent communication, wherein the subsequent communication, when received, is presented via the output device ([0086] “In more detail, as shown in FIG. 5E, the user can be provided with a rendering of a stream, along with audio (e.g., using display and speaker modules of a mobile computing device executing an associated application).”)
Regarding claim 9, Moturu discloses determining an elapsed time since receiving the user input indicative of the current mood evaluation data ([0052] “portions of the survey response dataset preferably correspond to a time period overlapping with the time period associated with the sensor-data and communication data”)
wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request is further based at least in part on the elapsed time ([0119] “In another example, Block S150 can include establishing a threshold parameter of promoting a therapeutic intervention (e.g., a nightly interactive mood survey) when the patient is in bed (e.g., a time period in which log of use data for the patient indicate a low level of digital communication from the patient)”)
Regarding claim 10, Moturu discloses wherein determining whether to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request includes determining to initiate the subsequent mood evaluation request when the current mood evaluation data is indicative of a negative mood and wherein the elapsed time is lower than a threshold elapsed time ([0038] “Receiving a log of use dataset can be performed […] during, […] a therapeutic intervention S142” [0109] “determining a health state of the patient during a time period, which functions to identify if the user is experiencing an adverse health state” [0142] “administering (e.g., automatically administering, automatically administering […] during […] promotion of a therapeutic intervention in order to analyze patient improvement from the therapeutic intervention”)
Note: during a therapeutic intervention is lower than a threshold elapsed time since it is prior to completion of the therapeutic at a timepoint.
Regarding claim 11, Moturu discloses wherein receiving the user input indicative of current mood evaluation data includes storing the current mood evaluation data along with a timestamp of when the user input was received ([0035] “receiving a log of use dataset associated with patient digital communication behavior at a mobile computing device, wherein the log of use dataset corresponds to a time period S110; receiving a supplementary dataset corresponding to the time period S115”)
Regarding claim 12, Moturu discloses determining an elapsed time since receiving the user input indicative of the current mood evaluation data, wherein selecting the therapeutic path is further based at least in part on the elapsed time ([0118] “In another example, Block S150 can include generating a dynamic care plan modifiable over a second time period subsequent the first time period, the dynamic care plan including a therapeutic intervention. In another example, generating a digital care plan can include selecting a second therapeutic intervention from the set of therapeutic interventions, based on processing at least one of a log of use dataset”)
Regarding claim 15, Moturu discloses initiating a chatbot session, wherein receiving the user input and transmitting the communication occur via the chatbot session ([0077] “engaging the patient in a digital calibration conversation (e.g., with a chat bot, with a virtual assistant, with a care provider)”)
Regarding claim 16, Moturu discloses wherein the current mood evaluation data is indicative of i) a positive mood, ii) a negative mood, or iii) a neutral mood ([0142] “In examples, the surveys can be informal (e.g., “choose a face that best matches your current emotions”, asking the user to select an image from a set of images representing different emotions, etc.)” [0039] “vocal and textual content (e.g., text and/or voice data that can be used to derive features indicative of negative or positive sentiments)”)
Regarding claim 21, Moturu discloses receiving user input associated with the therapeutic path ([0122] “provision parameters of a dynamic care plan can be influenced from user preferences including at least one of preferred types of therapeutic interventions and/or therapeutic intervention categories […] User preferences can be selected manually (e.g., by a patient based on options provided at an application executing on a patient mobile computing device, etc.”)
updating the current mood evaluation data based at least in part on the user input ([0082] “updating therapeutic intervention models, reference profiles, threshold conditions, etc.)
and altering the therapeutic path based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data ([0082] “generating a dynamic care plan (e.g., analyzing patient interaction with a given type of therapeutic interaction to infer when and/or how to administer future therapeutic interventions of the same type, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 24, Moturu discloses wherein the therapeutic path includes a decision tree having a plurality of nodes ([0096] “In examples, the statistical approaches can implement one or more of: […] decision tree analysis (alternating decision tree analysis, best-first decision tree analysis, decision stump tree analysis, functional tree analysis, C4-5 decision tree analysis”)
Regarding claim 25, Moturu discloses one or more processors ([0152] “The computer-executable component can be a processor”)
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more data processors, cause the one or more data processors to perform the method of claim 1 ([0152] “a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated with the application, applet, host, server, network, website, communication service, communication interface, hardware/firmware/software elements of an individual computer or mobile device, or any suitable combination thereof.”)
Regarding claim 26, Moturu discloses a computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause a data processing apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 ([0152] “The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer readable media such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory, EEPROMs, optical devices (CD or DVD), hard drives, floppy drives, or any suitable device.”)
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US20210391083A1) in view of Shin et al. (KR20110135015A).
Regarding claim 13, Moturu discloses identifying a therapy milestone ([0133] “identifying a satisfaction of goals for a first skill path (e.g., the sleep improvement skill path)”)
receiving therapeutic data associated with the therapy milestone ([0146] “receive a log of use dataset” [0133] “based on analyzing a log of use dataset (e.g., indicating less anxiety and increased energy) and a mobility behavior supplemental dataset (e.g., indicating increased physical activity)”)
wherein selecting the therapeutic path is further based at least in part on the therapeutic data and the elapsed time ([0038] “selecting a personalized therapeutic intervention to be promoted to a patient after the time period” [0136] “For example, Block S170 can include selecting a personalized therapeutic intervention for modifying a dynamic care plan in response to patient completion of a default therapeutic intervention.”)
Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Shin teaches and
determining an elapsed time between identifying the therapy milestone and receiving the user input ([pg. 8] “the evaluation data input unit 231 is the execution status of the occupational therapy program performed by the patient […] The opinion data input unit 232 collects information on the patient's work, the number of times, the execution time, or the success of the patient based on the evaluation data and the milestone information selected for each patient”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu determining an elapsed time between identifying the therapy milestone and receiving the user input as taught by Shin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Moturu discloses wherein the therapy milestone is completion of a therapeutic exercise ([0133] “identifying a satisfaction of goals for a first skill path (e.g., the sleep improvement skill path)”)
and wherein the therapeutic data is based at least in part on a past user input received during the therapeutic exercise ([0133] “analyzing a log of use dataset (e.g., indicating less anxiety and increased energy) and a mobility behavior supplemental dataset (e.g., indicating increased physical activity); and dynamically adjusting the dynamic care plan to transition into therapeutic intervention configured to satisfy goals”)
Claim(s) 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US20210391083A1) in view of Abbas (US20170068893A1).
Regarding claim 17, Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Abbas teaches wherein the first therapeutic path includes a first number of nodes ([Figure 1] As can be seen in Fig. 1, the first path branching at the top includes various decision nodes (i.e., root & internal nodes).)
wherein the second therapeutic path includes a second number of nodes ([Figure 1] As can be seen in Fig. 1, the second path branching at the bottom includes a root (decision) node.)
and wherein the first number of nodes is different than the second number of nodes ([Figure 1] As can be seen in Fig. 1, the second path branching at the bottom includes 1 node which is different from the first branch that includes a plurality of nodes.)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu a first number of nodes, a second number of nodes, and wherein the first number of nodes is different than the second number of nodes as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Abbas teaches wherein the nodes of the first therapeutic path include the nodes of the second therapeutic path and at least one additional node ([Figure 1] As can be seen in Fig. 1, the first path branching at the top includes root node of the second path on top of internal nodes.)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu nodes of the first therapeutic path including the nodes of the second therapeutic path and at least one additional node as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Abbas teaches wherein each node of the first number of nodes and the second number of nodes includes a prompt for user input ([0020] “At each stage, a user is given a choice of adding a decision (square or rectangle at the vertex followed by emanating branches representing the alternatives), an uncertainty (oval or circle at the vertex followed by emanating branches representing the outcomes), and a value node at the end of the tree (a triangle).” [0022] “To further illustrate the invention, if a user clicks on a decision node to be added to the tree, the user may be prompted for the names and number of alternatives in this decision.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu each node of the first number of nodes and the second number of nodes including a prompt for user input as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Moturu discloses […] updated current mood evaluation data ([0082] “updating therapeutic intervention models, reference profiles, threshold conditions, etc.)
Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Abbas teaches wherein receiving the user input includes receiving a response to a prompt associated with a node of the therapeutic path ([0022] “If the user specifies three alternatives for this decision, and if this is the first decision in the tree, then the number of end nodes is three.”)
and wherein altering the therapeutic path includes, for a given node having a given expected subsequent node, selecting an alternate subsequent node based on the […] ([0023] “Suppose now that the user wishes to add another node (like an uncertainty) to the branch corresponding to the top most alternative in the first decision. The user highlights the alternative and then clicks on the uncertainty node. The user may be prompted for the number of outcomes and names of outcomes of the uncertainty.”)
Note: uncertainty represents a point where the outcome isn't controlled by a decision.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu receiving a response to a prompt associated with a node of the therapeutic path; and, selecting an alternate subsequent node as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 23, Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Abbas teaches wherein altering the therapeutic path includes changing a total number of nodes of the therapeutic path [0023] “If, for example, the user specifies three outcomes, then the resulting tree will now have five end nodes (three from the added uncertainty and two from the remaining alternatives in the first decision).”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu changing a total number of nodes of the therapeutic path as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moturu et al. (US20210391083A1) in view of Jain et al. (US11302448B1).
Regarding claim 20, Moturu does not explicitly disclose however Jain teaches determining, for each therapeutic path of the set of possible therapeutic paths, a compliance score based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data, the compliance score being indicative of a likelihood that the user will complete the given therapeutic path ([pg. 20] “collecting user input data […] through surveys […] the surveys comprise ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) configured to assess an individual's current experience, behavior, and/or mood at the time” [pg. 27] “The techniques discussed herein can include integration and analysis of data from multiple sources, including multiple digital health platforms […] In many cases, users of different types or with different attributes may have different compliance rates” [pg. 17] “obtaining data indicating at least one of […] (ii) compliance with disease prevention measures”)
and determining the selected therapeutic path based at least in part on the compliance scores ([pg. 49] “The device can collect sensor data […] This data can be used for compliance qualifiers (e.g., to verify that the user successfully completed the exercise as requested)”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Moturu determining a compliance score based at least in part on the current mood evaluation data; and, determining the selected therapeutic path based at least in part on the compliance scores as taught by Abbas since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial. JMIR mental health, 4(2), e7785.
This reference is relevant because it discloses the applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687