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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 2 be found allowable, claims 4 and 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5 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 1-5 (Group I includes claims 1-2, Group II includes claim 3, and Group III includes claims 4-5) are drawn to methods for multimodal and automated chat-bots for screening and monitoring of mental health conditions, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Step 2A | Prong One
Claim 1 of Group I recites a computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of:
receiving from a user over a network a media file (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)) including a recorded patient screening interview;
receiving from the user over the network (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g)) first data comprising one or more responses provided by the patient to a mental health questionnaire;
generating a transcription of audio associated with the media file;
performing video sentiment analysis on video associated with the media file to generate a second data set; and
based on at least one of the transcription, first data and second data, generating an artificial intelligence model configured to provide predicted risk levels of the patient for one or more mental health conditions.
Claim 3 of Group II recites a computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of:
accessing a memory device on which is stored a set of questions pertaining to mental health of a patient (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP § 2106.05(g));
presenting to the patient via a graphical user interface (GUI) (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) a first question of the set of questions;
recording, via a microphone (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a first answer of the patient to the first question;
recording, via a camera (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)), images of the patient answering the first question;
based on at least one of the recorded answer and the recorded images, selecting a second question of the set of questions;
presenting to the patient via a graphical user interface (GUI) (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)) the second question of the set of questions;
recording, via a microphone (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)), a second answer of the patient to the second question;
recording, via a camera (apply it, MPEP § 2106.05(f)), images of the patient answering the second question; and
based on the first and second answers, determining a score characterizing a relevance of a mental health topic to the patient.
Claim 4 recites the same abstract idea and additional elements as claim 1.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2 and 5 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 5 recite identifying one or more features characterizing one or more responses of the patient included in at least one of the transcription, first data and second data; associating the one or more features with respective at least one of lengths, colors and shades representing relative variable importance of the one or more features; and displaying in a graphical display the respective at least one of lengths, colors and shades of the features, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 3 and 4.
Step 2A | Prong Two
Furthermore, Claims 1-5 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a graphical user interface, microphone and camera, which amounts to merely invoking a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0214, 0216] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of receiving data and retrieving questions from a memory, which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0214, 0216] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. user interface, computer, microphone, camera) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receiving data, retrieving stored data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives media file and response data;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing questions pertaining to mental health data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the questions data from storage in order to ask the patient;
Dependent Claims 2 and 5 do not include any limitations beyond those recited in the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-5 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(a)(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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shriberg (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0110895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shriberg discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of:
receiving from a user over a network a media file including a recorded patient screening interview (Paragraphs [0063], [0073] and [0302] discuss receiving a video file of the patient to identify the mental state of the subject.);
receiving from the user over the network first data comprising one or more responses provided by the patient to a mental health questionnaire (Paragraphs [0073], [0152] and [0156] discuss receiving audio or audio-visual data of the patient responding to questions regarding the patient’s mental health.);
generating a transcription of audio associated with the media file (Paragraphs [0168] and [0304] discuss the system providing a text transcript of the dialogue from the video.);
performing video sentiment analysis on video associated with the media file to generate a second data set (Paragraphs [0236], [0285] and [0289] discuss performing sentiment analysis on the files.). and
based on at least one of the transcription, first data and second data, generating an artificial intelligence model configured to provide predicted risk levels of the patient for one or more mental health conditions (Paragraphs [0071], [0154], [0156], [0185] and [0303] discuss inputting the data to generate and train machine learning models for assessments of a patient’s mental health.).
Regarding claim 2, Shriberg discloses further comprising the steps of:
identifying one or more features characterizing one or more responses of the patient included in at least one of the transcription, first data and second data (Paragraphs [0071] discusses processing the responses to identify features indicative of mental condition.);
associating the one or more features with respective at least one of lengths, colors and shades representing relative variable importance of the one or more features (Paragraph [0368] discusses features may include changing the speech rates, font sizes and colors.); and
displaying in a graphical display the respective at least one of lengths, colors and shades of the features (Paragraphs [0044-0045] and [0169] discuss generating word cloud for one or more topics of concern.).
Regarding claim 3, Shriberg discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of:
accessing a memory device on which is stored a set of questions pertaining to mental health of a patient (Paragraph [0193] discusses accessing a question and dialogue action bank for questions to ask the patient regarding their mental health status.);
presenting to the patient via a graphical user interface (GUI) a first question of the set of questions (Paragraphs [0193-0194] and [0584] discuss presenting questions to a patient on a user interface.);
recording, via a microphone, a first answer of the patient to the first question (Paragraphs [0159], [0193-0194] and [0549] discuss a microphone being used an input device for the screening/monitoring including a first answer of the patient to the first question.);
recording, via a camera, images of the patient answering the first question (Paragraphs [0159], [0193-0194] and [0549] discusses a camera being used to document and capture the screening/monitoring.);
based on at least one of the recorded answer and the recorded images, selecting a second question of the set of questions (Paragraphs [0195-0196] discuss based on the patient’s answer to the first question, selecting a second question.);
presenting to the patient via a graphical user interface (GUI) the second question of the set of questions (Paragraphs [0193-0194] and [0584] discuss presenting questions to a patient on a user interface.);
recording, via a microphone, a second answer of the patient to the second question (Paragraphs [0159], [0193-0194] and [0549] discuss a microphone being used an input device for the screening/monitoring including an answer of the patient to a question.);
recording, via a camera, images of the patient answering the second question (Paragraphs [0159], [0193-0194] and [0549] discusses a camera being used to document and capture the screening/monitoring.); and
based on the first and second answers, determining a score characterizing a relevance of a mental health topic to the patient (Paragraphs [0170-0171] and [0329] discuss generating a score based on the patient’s answers to the questions presented.).
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 4 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686