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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 15 are amended, claims 3 and 13 are canceled, and new claim 21 is added. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-21 are examined below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 15 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 term “realistic” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “realistic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "evaluate input of the patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “potential emergency in the person’s cognitive decline” in claims 5 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “potential emergency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 is rendered indefinite by the amendments to claim 1. Claim 10 recites, “…wherein the applied virtual environment comprises any 3D room including but not limited to a living room, a bedroom, a garden, a barn paddock and pasture, a bathroom, a café, a temple, or a zoo”. However, amended claim 1 recites “at least one applied virtual environment depicting engagement prompts comprising pictograms depicting people, places, and objects in realistic domestic settings…”. A “café”, “temple”, or “zoo” are not considered as domestic since they are unrelated to one’s home. Thus the claim is unclear.
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.
Regarding claims 21, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is drawn to software per se. The claim is defined merely by software or terms synonymous with software such as “server”, “platform”, “modules”, “engines”, “graphical user interface”, “units” etc. See MPEP 2106.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites (additional elements crossed out):
A system for digital engagement
evaluate input of the patient based on a mixed model for observing
engage the person
log session data over a time period as progress data and evaluate progress data of the person to detect data representing changes over time to the person’s dementia; and
provide feedback and support based on the evaluated progress data.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by “a processor coupled to memory” an “application comprising at least one applied virtual environment”, and a “virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. For example, but for the recited computing language, the limitations describe a system for engaging in dialogue with a dementia patient, logging and evaluating progress data of the patient, and providing feedback and support. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior, as well as actions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “a processor coupled to memory” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Para. [0016]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Furthermore, the claims recite an “application comprising at least one applied virtual environment” and digital engagement. However, this merely serves to place the judicial exception into a computer environment. Moreover, the claims recite the additional elements of a “virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence”. However, the functionality intended to be performed by the “virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence” appears to be based on very rudimentary constraints (e.g., dialogue based on valuated input). Without some prohibition in the claims regarding scalability, computation load, etc., the functions performed by the “virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence” could reasonably be considered an additional abstract idea in the “mental process” category, but for which is simply automated (i.e., “apply it”).
Accordingly, 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. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), particularly as it relates to the recited “processor coupled to memory”, “application comprising at least one applied virtual environment”, and “virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence” elements. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 12-20 are dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, they are also directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 2 and 12 recite “a plurality of agents configured to perform a given task”. However, the claims do not specify any details regarding the given task. As such the claims are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the applied virtual environment comprises any 3D room including but not limited to a living room, a bedroom, a garden, a barn paddock and pasture, a bathroom, a café, a temple, or a zoo”. However this merely places the judicial exception into a computer environment. The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Talk therapy AI may detect earliest symptoms of dementia by analyzing speech patterns” by The NewsHive, available July 2, 2023, hereinafter referred to as NewsHive1, and “Smart Health System to Detect Dementia Disorders Using Virtual Reality” by Areej Bayaha, available June 28, 2021, hereinafter referred to as Bayaha2, and Tarnanas (US 2025/0006369).
Regarding claim 1, NewsHive partially discloses A system for digital engagement comprising a processor coupled to memory, the processor being configured to:
operate an application for a person living with dementia… within which the person provides input with respect to one or more activities of daily living, the input comprising video of the person’s face, audio of the person’s speech, and display screen selections made by the person through touch screen tapping ;
evaluate input of the patient based on a mixed model for observing digital engagement to generate session data, the evaluating comprising speech recognition from the audio, speech emotion recognition from the audio, facial emotion recognition from the video, and motor skill evaluation from precision and speed of the touch screen tapping;
engage the person with the application using dialogue delivered by at least one virtual avatar, the virtual avatar being supported by artificial intelligence and the dialogue being determined based on the session data;
log session data over a time period as progress data and evaluate progress data of the person to detect data representing changes over time to the person’s dementia;
provide feedback and support based on the evaluated progress data
(See “Researchers at the University of Sheffield in the UK have developed an artificial intelligence-powered tool called CognoSpeak, which aims to detect signs of dementia, Alzheimer's, and other memory disorders by analyzing a person's speech and language patterns. In early trials, the tool demonstrated 90% accuracy in identifying individuals with dementia. The system involves a virtual agent that asks patients questions and assesses their verbal fluency. CognoSpeak's AI technology then analyzes the patient's language and speech patterns to detect cognitive warning signs. The tool is being tested on 700 participants from UK memory clinics, with the goal of enabling faster diagnosis and reducing waiting times for patients. The tool could serve as a "middle man" between general practitioners and dementia specialists, providing timely information for further memory care decisions. Early detection is crucial in managing dementia, and while AI shows promise in neurology, further research is needed to validate its utility. Other aspects of cognition and a detailed neurological examination are also necessary for a comprehensive diagnosis. The availability of non-invasive and less expensive approaches to early detection, such as blood tests and digital tests, could make cognitive assessments more accessible to a larger population”. However, NewsHive only explicitly discloses the use of speech inputs, and not facial or tapping inputs, or the analysis of session data over a time period. See Tarnanas, Paras. [0126]-[0130] – “[0126] While wearables collect more obvious data, such as: heart rate, heart rate variability, and oxygen saturation levels from photoplethysmography sensors; smartphones and tablets collect less intuitive, yet incredibly powerful data. Some examples of digital biomarker data that can be collected from smart devices include: [0127] (a) microphones, which can be used to detect biomarkers of speech, such as fluency, mood, and sentiment; [0128] (b) cameras, which can detect eye movements, pupil dilation, and facial expression; [0129] (c) touchscreen sensors, which can identify fine motor skills required for tapping, swiping, and typing; [0130] (d) inertial sensors, including accelerometers and gyroscopes, which can detect human motion and posture, enabling the measurement of gait metrics”, Para. [0131] – “The number and types of biomarkers used can provide, the applicant has found, a comprehensive view of a person's condition. They can comprise motoric markers, including for example speed of movement, range of movement, force applied in an action (pressing a button or pressure sensitive pad for example) trembling, reaction times, and so on; and they may also comprise cognitive indicators, such as time to complete a task, accuracy of movement or reaction, accuracy and time to complete a set exercise and so on.”, and [0132] – “Digital biomarkers can also provide longitudinal (time lapse) data collection both at an individual and at a population level. Most tools used to assess brain health lack the infrastructure for longitudinal analysis and typically only provide a means of cross-sectional data collection and analysis. Longitudinal data offers the ability to analyse brain health on a personalized basis to gain insights into how an individual's brain health is changing over time. With longitudinal data, which tracks the progression of digital biomarkers over time, a processing unit (preferably an artificial intelligence) can make predictions from data to determine if, when, and how an individual will develop a particular illness or disease such as Alzheimer's.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify NewsHive to incorporate facial and tapping inputs, and longitudinal data as taught by Tarnanas since they are both in the same field of endeavor (i.e., cognitive assessment based on data provided by patient interactions), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
NewsHive does not explicitly disclose wherein the application comprises at least one applied virtual environment depicting engagement prompts comprising pictograms depicting people, places, and objects in realistic domestic settings. (See Bayaha – “Smart VR health technology acts as a decision support system in the diseases diagnostic test of patients as they perform real world tasks in virtual reality (e.g., navigation). In this study, a non-invasive, cognitive computerized test based on 3D virtual environments for detecting the main symptoms of dementia (memory loss, visuospatial defects, and spatial navigation) is proposed.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify NewsHive to utilize the teachings of Bayaha since they are both within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia using computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The Examiner notes that the language “…depicting engagement prompts comprising pictograms depicting people, places, and objects in realistic domestic settings withing which the person provides input with respect to one or more activities of daily living…” is merely a label for the virtual environment and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., what is depicted in the application comprised of an applied virtual environment) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., operating the application) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the virtual environment of NewsHive and Bayaha depict the content disclosed in the claim because the depicted content does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the virtual environment differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, in light of the 112 rejection above, NewsHive discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
Analyze the evaluated input data against data across a plurality of data modalities to predict a potential emergency in the person’s cognitive decline; and
trigger an alert based on the prediction.
(See “CognoSpeak's AI technology then analyzes the patient's language and speech patterns to detect cognitive warning signs. The tool is being tested on 700 participants from UK memory clinics, with the goal of enabling faster diagnosis and reducing waiting times for patients. The tool could serve as a "middle man" between general practitioners and dementia specialists, providing timely information for further memory care decisions. Early detection is crucial in managing dementia, and while AI shows promise in neurology, further research is needed to validate its utility.”
Regarding claim 10, NewsHive does not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the applied virtual environment comprises any 3D room including but not limited to a living room, a bedroom, a garden, a barn paddock and pasture, a bathroom, a café, a temple, or a zoo. (See Bayaha – “A real-world navigation test is compared with a virtual reality version in the study done by Cushman et al. [22]. Spatial orientation is investigated by Tu et al. [21] by using a novel ecological, non-immersive virtual supermarket task. In order to examine age- and Alzheimer’s disease-related differences in route learning and spatial memory, an immersive virtual city was created by Zakzanis et al. [16]” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify NewsHive to utilize the teachings of Bayaha since they are both within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia using computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 15 features limitations similar to those of claim 5, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 20 features limitations similar to those of claim 10, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NewsHive in view of Bayaha and Tarnanas, and in further view of Plath (US 2023/0301517)
Regarding claim 2, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, the system further comprising a plurality of agents supported by artificial intelligence, wherein each of the plurality of agents is configured to perform a given task and to cooperate with others of the plurality of agents to generate output. (NewsHive discloses the use of AI technology, but does not provide sufficient detail regarding it. See Plath, Para. [0064] – “In the fourth module 248, the remote server 140 can execute one or more artificial intelligence and/or machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms to review the physical, emotional, and/or mental development of the supervised being 130. For example, the AI/ML algorithms can use the data from the electronic device 132 (FIG. 1) to study the bioindicators for the supervised being 130, evaluate their physical, emotional, and/or mental development, and/or make recommendations to the responsible persons regarding the same.”, and Para. [0065] – “Examples of the artificial intelligence algorithms include, but are not limited to, case-based reasoning, rule-based systems, artificial neural networks, decision trees, support vector machines, regression analysis, Bayesian networks (e.g., naïve Bayes classifiers), genetic algorithms, cellular automata, fuzzy logic systems, multi-agent systems, swarm intelligence, data mining, machine learning (e.g., supervised learning, unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning), and hybrid systems.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Plath since the use of multiple agents may potentially speed up the execution time of the AI technology of NewsHive.
Claim 12 features limitations similar to those of claim 2, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 21 features limitations similar to those of claims 1 and 2, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NewsHive in view of Bayaha and Tarnanas, and in further view of “Automatic detection of cognitive impairment in elderly people using an entertainment chatbot with Natural Language Processing capabilities” by Francisco de Arriba-Perez, available April 29, 2022, hereinafter referred to as Arriba-Perez3
Regarding claim 4, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to evaluate the input of the person and deliver the dialogue in real time. (NewsHive mentions the use of a “virtual agent”, which heavily implies providing responsive dialogue in real-time, however, this is not explicitly stated. See Arriba-Perez, Page 6 – “To generate dichotomous questions, we rely on the nec functionality of Freeling to extract personal names and locations from the news. This produces questions such as those in Table 2. The system always generates four similar options for each question, and one of them is picked at random and presented to the user. Then, depending on the user’s answer, the system poses the next question as indicated in Table 3.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Arriba-Perez since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia through computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the dialogue is formulated based on the evaluated input of the person. (NewsHive mentions the use of a “virtual agent”, which heavily implies providing responsive dialogue in real-time, however, this is not explicitly stated. See Arriba-Perez, Page 6 – “To generate dichotomous questions, we rely on the nec functionality of Freeling to extract personal names and locations from the news. This produces questions such as those in Table 2. The system always generates four similar options for each question, and one of them is picked at random and presented to the user. Then, depending on the user’s answer, the system poses the next question as indicated in Table 3.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Arriba-Perez since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia through computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to engage the person with the application using guided personalized goals. (See Arriba-Perez – “Accordingly, we want our solution to be perceived as a friendly intelligent assistant to access Internet media, that is, a conversational system that reads news. These will be interspersed with brief dialogues to subtly guide the users through a series of questions to gather their interests and evaluate their understanding of the information they have just consumed, which includes word category understanding and short-term memory, to evaluate cognitive impairment (Loewenstein et al. 2004; Crocco et al. 2014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Arriba-Perez since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia through computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Claim 14 features limitations similar to those of claim 4, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 16 features limitations similar to those of claim 6, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 18 features limitations similar to those of claim 8, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NewsHive in view of Bayaha and Tarnanas,, and in further view of Periyasamy (US 2021/0098110)
Regarding claim 7, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to tailor the dialogue based on the person’s medical data, a severity of the person’s dementia, the person’s speech capability, and background information regarding the person. (See Periyasamy, at least Para. [0009] – “The methods may include: collecting continuously user data from at least one of the mobile device, a user device, a user, or a public records database, where the user data may include: user input, public records including family relations data, and/or a plurality of data tracked by the mobile device or the user device which can include sleep data, activity data, mood data, screen time data, social data, or food data; identifying one or more symptoms exhibited by the user based at least in part on the collected user data; determining a mental health condition of the user based at least in part on the identified symptoms, selecting cognitive behavioral therapy information, and a list of diagnoses based on diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders; identifying a root cause or a contributing factor for the mental health condition based at least in part on the collected user data; and recommending via a virtual agent self-help to the user for managing the mental health condition, the root cause, and/or the contributing factor(s) during a one-on-one interactive therapy and counseling session with the virtual agent.”, and Para. [0047] – “The AI based dialogue conversational engine 12 allows the Chabot to have a conversational dialogue with the user based on user's dialogue style, preferences, or habits observed by the mental health condition device 10.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Periyasami since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e. detection of dementia through computerized means), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 17 features limitations similar to those of claim 7, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NewsHive in view of Bayaha and Tarnanas, and in further view of Darby (US 2002/0192624)
Regarding claim 9, NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate progress data of the person including a progression of dementia over a given period of time. (See Darby, Para. [0021] – “A tested subject may produce a reference result by performing a test multiple times. The test may be performed over a wide range of time intervals, depending upon the purpose; for example, in order to differentiate between an impaired and a non-impaired group of subjects, the test may be administered three or four times on the same day or in rapid succession. To monitor progression of cognitive impairment or to evaluate the efficacy of treatment, the same or similar test may be administered at intervals of three to six months, for example.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of NewsHive, Bayaha, and Tarnanas to utilize the teachings of Darby since it may allow for the evaluation of the efficacy of any provided treatment.
Claim 19 features limitations similar to those of claim 9, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (claims 5 and 15) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not resolve the issues brought forth in the rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that (to paraphrase) amending the claims to recite the generation of session data based on a mixed model evaluation of a person’s collected input comprising speech recognition, speech emotion recognition, facial emotion recognition, and motor skill evaluation, results in the claims going significantly beyond the abstract idea. This is not persuasive as the generation of session data based on particular inputs is abstract in itself.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are moot due to the application of additional prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“CognoSpeak - AI technology aims to speed up dementia diagnosis”4 by shefcompsi, available June 28, 2023, further details CognoSpeak disclosed by NewsHive reference
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/MARK HOLCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_aEC3obXU (also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf1u_zoVgKQ for more information regarding CognoSpeak capabilities)
2 Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/7/810
3 Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-022-03849-2
4 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf1u_zoVgKQ