Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status Of Claims
This action in response to application 18/825824 filled on 09/05/2025.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Detailed Action
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-19 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 18, and 19 recite the steps of providing an assessment of a patient by analyzing complex emotions and translating a session with a patient into a decision tree. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a chatbot, camera, microphone, software, user interface, and processor, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of receiving inputs, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitation is incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion:
“In the best mode, the processor is programmed to serve as a chatbot with a natural language processor coded for automated sentiment detection. The system detects and processes neutral, positive and negative sentiments for automated mood detection. Mood detection is then incorporated into an assessment provided to a clinician. The system further includes code for activating an alarm in response to detected negative sentiment. “
“web camera, microphone and speakers between the patient and the Chatbot along with code for voice and facial recognition including code for mood, gesture and/or posture detection. The patient's mood may be determined by assessing tonality of the voice (i.e., raising voice, staying calm, being assertive) and facial expressions during interactions and etc. Sentiment analysis is utilized for emotion detection (how the patient feels). ”
“each clinician or patient's platform includes a system processor, display, memory and user input/output (1/0) interface. The 1/0 interface typically includes a mobile application,15 or keyboard, a mouse, and a display, however, the display is shown separately in Figure 2. The user/clinician's system processor is coupled to the LooperRoom platform (shown as a LooperRoom artificially intelligent (Al) system processor) via a user's network interface, a local area network, wide area network and/or the internet and a LooperRoom network interface. The user's platform and network interface as well as the LooperRoom20 network inteace may be of conventional design and construction. The operation of the LooperRoom Al system processor is illustrated in the flow diagram of Figure 3.”
The claims recite the additional element of receiving inputs which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-17when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shriberg et al. (US 2021/0110895 A1).
In claim 1, a intelligent patient assessment system comprising:
Shriberg teaches:
a system processor (Para. 339);
software stored on a tangible medium operationally coupled to the system processor and programmed to provide a chatbot with a decision tree operative to interact with a patient and provide an assessment of a patient, said software including code for translating commands collected from a group of professional practitioners as to how a qualified practitioner would conduct a session with a patient into said decision tree ( Para. 423 wherein “his classifier may be, for example, a decision tree classifier, a k-nearest neighbors' classifier, or a neural network-based classifier. The classifier may produce multiple labels for a particular patient at an intermediate or final stage of assessment, with the labels indicating seventies or extents of a particular mental state.”); and
a user interface operationally coupled to the processor including a camera and a microphone whereby (Para. 159) , in response to inputs from the patient, the processor executes the software to automatically detect and analyze complex emotions including fear, anger, sadness, love, or frustration and output patient assessment results in response thereto (Para. 291 wherein “ Descriptive model and analytics 1812 (FIG. 18) may generate analytics and labels for numerous health states, not just depression. Examples of such labels include emotion, anxiety, how engaged the patient is, patient energy, sentiment, speech rate, and dialogue topic”).
As per claim 2, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 1 wherein said user interface includes a dashboard (Para. 56).
As per claim 3, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 2 wherein said dashboard includes a data analysis tool (Para. 149).
As per claim 4, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 3 wherein said dashboard includes a data visualization program (Para. 149).
As per claim 5, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 1 wherein the software includes code for enabling the processor to serve as a natural language processor (Para. 150).
As per claim 6, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 5 further including code for sentiment detection (Para. 236).
As per claim 7, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 6 further including code for neutral, positive and negative mood detection (Para. 183 and 209).
As per claim 8, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 7 wherein said assessment is provided in response to said mood detection (Para. 149 and 154).
As per claim 9, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 8 wherein said assessment is provided to a clinician in response to said sentiment detection (Para. 155).
As per claim 10, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 5 further including code for activating an alarm in response to detected sentiment (Para. 465-466).
As per claim 11, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 1 wherein the chatbot is initialized with a conversation flow matrix (Para. 18 and Fig. 8).
As per claim 12, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 1 wherein the chatbot administers a questionnaire to a patient (Fig. 8).
As per claim 13, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 12 further including code for sentiment detection (Para. 236).
As per claim 14, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 12 further including code for neutral, positive and negative mood detection (Para. 247 and 352).
As per claim 15, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 14 wherein said assessment is provided in response to sentiment detection and said mood detection (Para. 352 and 362).
As per claim 16, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 15 wherein said assessment is provided to a clinician in response to said sentiment detection and mood detection (Para. 155).
As per claim 17, Shriberg teaches the invention of Claim 12 further including code for activating an alarm in response to detected negative sentiment (Para. 465-466).
Claims 18-19 recite substantially similar limitations as noted in claim 1 and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liyanage et al. (US 2024/0374187 A1) teaches multi modal systems and methods for voice based mental health assessment with emotion stimulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687