DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-20, as filed 11/15/2024, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged to 63/599,912 which was filed 11/16/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. The claims state “identify at-risk user” but this appears to be a typographical mistake that should read “identify an at-risk user”. Additionally, the claims recites “a first score” and “the score”. These terms both appear to refer to the same element, so “the score” should instead read “the first score”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the claims use the term “the user” but this term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, using a first measurement system, a first data;
inputting, the first data into a predictive model to determine a first score; (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data-gathering; applying the abstract idea with a computer)
determining, using the score, an indicator associated with a mental state status of the user; (mental process because a therapist can review various patient data including scores to determine mental state of a patient)
obtaining, using a second measurement system, a second data;
obtaining, using a third measurement system, a third data; (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data-gathering)
determining, using the predictive model, a wellbeing index to identify at-risk user; and (mental process because a therapist can review various patient data including scores to determine mental state of a patient)
sending, to a provider, a notification if the user is the at-risk user (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; data output).
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other claims 9 and 17.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes such as determinations about a patient that a therapist could make. For example, but for the predictive model and language, determining a wellbeing index in the context of this claim is analogous to steps a human would perform mentally while observing a patient.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, claims 2-4 recite additional types of data which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and applying the abstract idea with a computer. Claim 5 recites CNNs at a high level such that it amounts to generally linking to a technical field. Claims 6-8 recite at a high level displaying data which amounts to applying the abstract idea with a computer. The same logic applies to the other dependent claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “using the predictive model” amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0034]-[0035], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, obtaining various types of data amounts to mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as a deep CNN in claim 5, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented method” which amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and types of data that are obtained which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering. 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 conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/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, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). With respect to the deep CNN of claim 5, this technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional as set forth in the Muffat reference and the “Convolutional neural network” Wikipedia article. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the specification merely invokes this technology at a high level without describing technical implementation details. Such a recitation is only enabled under 112(a) because this this type of model is well-known in the field.
Dependent claims 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. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra (US12380988B1 – published 08/05/2025 and claiming priority to 17/522,616, filed on 11/09/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Misra discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
--obtaining, using a first measurement system, a first data (“receiving patient user input at the platform from the GUI interface displayed to the patient user device,” Abstract; IOS/Android app in [77]);
--inputting, the first data into a predictive model to determine a first score (“applying the patterns of answers by the child patient to predict values for future sessions by keeping clinicians informed of favorable outcome data,” [88]; “Scoring regulator 160 operates to capture and implement the manner by which points are awarded, accumulated, tracked, and calculated” [68]; predictive analysis in [88]-[90]);
--determining, using the score, an indicator associated with a mental state status of the user (“predict mental health states of the patient based on user response and inputs at the GUI (e.g., displayed to the patient's user device) responsive to questions and emotions recommending content and constructive stress coping mechanisms,” [180]);
--obtaining, using a second measurement system, a second data (“Therapists/clinicians may also input compiled information from these various parties into the platform and standardize their assessment process to quantify and track the efficacy of the behavioral therapies they utilize through various metrics including biometric data from the child,” [43]; “The embodiments allow children, therapists, parents, other healthcare providers and school staff to contribute behavioral health data for tracking and analysis to promote positive behavioral health outcomes, implemented and facilitated by a behavioral health engagement platform 101,” [72]);
--obtaining, using a third measurement system, a third data (“The platform allows parents and therapists to have more open and frequent communication, for example, by parents reporting information to therapists via questionnaires ahead of therapy sessions with the child instead of using valuable time during therapy sessions to do so. Therapists and parents may also receive alerts when the child reports a threshold of consecutive negative emotions over a period of sessions in which the child uses the platform,” [46]);
--determining, using the predictive model, a wellbeing index to identify at-risk user (“creating alert notifications at the platform based on one or more of: (i) the patient user input meeting or exceeding pre-set thresholds,” [48]; “users may be notified of symptoms or episodes of the child's behavioral health warranting their attention” [73]); and
--sending, to a provider, a notification if the user is the at-risk user (“sending the alert notification to the therapist GUI interface for display at a therapist user device and a parent GUI interface for display at a parent user device; and monitoring and promoting positive behavioral health outcomes,” [166]).
Regarding claim 2, Misra discloses: wherein the first data includes at least one of: survey data,
cognitive data, creativity data, mindfulness data, or social behavior data (“responses to questions about the patient's emotional state,” [173]; “questionnaires to be distributed in order to better understand mental health development and similarly to improve and identify the most significant psychological symptoms in a specific diagnosis” [75]).
Regarding claim 3, Misra discloses: wherein the second data includes at least one of: school reports; clinician reports; or family reports (“Therapists/clinicians may also input compiled information from these various parties into the platform and standardize their assessment process to quantify and track the efficacy of the behavioral therapies they utilize through various metrics including biometric data from the child,” [43]; “The embodiments allow children, therapists, parents, other healthcare providers and school staff to contribute behavioral health data for tracking and analysis to promote positive behavioral health outcomes, implemented and facilitated by a behavioral health engagement platform,” [72]).
Regarding claim 4, Misra discloses: wherein the third data includes at least one of: user reports;
educator reports; or counsellor reports (“provides the opportunity for the child patient to report changes in their behavior and overall health in real time to these various parties and to promote engagement between the various parties outside of therapy sessions,” [43]; “input about the patient is received from subsequent users such as other healthcare providers and school staff,” [187]).
Regarding claim 6, Misra discloses: wherein the first measurement system includes a user dashboard (“Still further, the child may interact with a child GUI transmitted to the child device 106C from the dashboard GUI generator 195 which permits the child to interact with various interactive media and content as specified by the therapist or interact with content selected by the platform's consent selector 180 based on a therapist determined diagnosis or modality, etc,” [68]).
Regarding claim 7, Misra discloses: wherein the second measurement system includes an educator dashboard (“According to another embodiment of method 1500-1501, input about the patient is received from subsequent users such as other healthcare providers and school staff, wherein the alert notifications are also sent to GUI interfaces for such users to be displayed at user devices for such users,” [187]).
Regarding claim 8, Misra discloses: wherein the third measurement system includes a third party dashboard (“the parent may observe a parent dashboard to check on the status of therapy for the child or to schedule appointments or to correspond electronically with the therapist,” [68]; “Third parties such as insurance companies may also use the reported metrics that the platform provides for coverage and billing purposes,” [46]).
Claims 9-12 and 17-20 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 14-16 are substantially similar to claims 6-8 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra (US12380988B1) in view of Muffat (US20200279105A1).
Regarding claim 5, Misra uses machine learning, e.g., [94], but does not expressly disclose a deep convolutional neural network model. Muffat teaches this (“train classification models (i.e., deep learning models 114 such as convolutional neural network models) that give a probabilistic response to whether text or a document should have a particular label,” [0025]; claim 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand Misra’s machine learning analysis of user data to use the convolutional neural network of Muffat because these “deep learning methods have made a significant improvement on traditional machine learning approaches” [0053].
Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Misra or Muffat. The CNN of Muffat does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Misra. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Muffat with the teachings of Misra since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, 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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights