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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the memory; recording the perception indication as incorrect where one of the following is true” recited in claim 2, ln. 24-25, claim 9, ln. 32-33, and claim 16, ln. 26-27 should likely read “in the memory; or recording the perception indication as incorrect where one of the following is true”. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted to read “or”, as the singular perception indication can either be correct or incorrect.
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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 2 recites in part “A method”, which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites limitations which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2 recites: A method for aiding psychosis patients in distinguishing auditory psychosis symptoms, the method implemented on a patient device, the method comprising:
monitoring for a non-audio input into a non-audio input device of the patient device by a patient, wherein the non-audio input is a deliberate, overt activation action by the patient that represents an affirmative, unambiguous indication that the patient is hearing sounds potentially symptomatic of psychosis (insignificant extra-solution activity: pre-solution data gathering);
receiving a perception indication from the patient in association with the deliberate, overt activation action by the patient that represents an affirmative, unambiguous indication that the patient is hearing sounds potentially symptomatic of psychosis, wherein the perception indication is one of: an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds; and an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination (insignificant extra-solution activity: pre-solution data gathering);
monitoring external ambient sounds, as obtained by a microphone of the patient device, and storing information associated with the external ambient sounds in a memory of the patient device (insignificant extra-solution activity: pre-solution data gathering/storage);
testing the external ambient sounds against a threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory (mental process: evaluation/judgment);
recording the perception indication as correct where one of the following is true: the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination and the ambient sounds fail to satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory; or the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds and the ambient sounds satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory (mental process: evaluation/judgment and/or insignificant extra-solution activity: post-solution data recording);
recording the perception indication as incorrect where one of the following is true: the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination and the ambient sounds satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory; or the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds and the ambient sounds fail to satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory (mental process: evaluation/judgment; and/or insignificant extra-solution activity: post-solution data recording).
The limitations of testing the external ambient sounds against a threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory and recording the perception indication as correct or incorrect based on the perception indication and satisfaction of an ambient sound threshold encompass mental processes (evaluation/judgment). That is, the ambient sound is compared to a threshold, and based on this comparison, an evaluation about the patient’s perception is performed (i.e., patient indicates they hear a sound, a determination whether ambient sound is above a threshold is made, and accordingly, the patient’s perception indication is evaluated to determine if patient is correct or not (if not, they are considered to be experiencing a hallucination)). Therefore, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim does not include additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations of “monitoring for a non-audio input into a non-audio input device of the patient device by the patient…; receiving a perception indication…[that] is one of: an indication that the patient perceives they are hearing actual sounds; and an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination; [and] monitoring external ambient sounds, as obtained by a microphone of the patient device, and storing information associated with the external ambient sounds in a memory of the patient device” are directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, wherein the gathered data is then used for a subsequent analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(g), noting that performing clinical tests to obtain inputs for an analysis is mere data gathering). The deliberate, overt activation action provides input information about the patient’s perception, wherein an analysis is performed to determine whether the patient’s perception corresponds to an actual ambient sound. Therefore, the deliberate, overt activation action is the mechanism for collecting an input to the determination, and the utilization of a generic device to obtain the input data for the analysis fails to make the data-gathering step significant. Additionally, the limitation of recording the perception indication as correct or incorrect is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (data recording/collection), wherein the result of the comparison of the ambient sounds against a threshold in light of the received patient perception is recorded.
Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., pre-solution activity of data gathering/storage, and post-solution activity of data recording/collection). Moreover, the recitation of the data gathering steps being performed with generic computer components (i.e., non-audio input device of the patient device and memory of the patient device) fail to make the data gathering/storage/recording steps significant. As evidence that the non-audio input device, patient device, and memory are generic, well-known, and conventional computing components, Applicant’s Specification discloses these elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Specification, [0015] & [0017], the smartphone 104 receives the perception indication from the user, wherein “[t]he smartphone 104 is merely one representative example of a networked mobile wireless telecommunication computing device, which may also be a tablet, smartwatch or other suitable device possessing a microphone, suitable wireless communication hardware and sufficient processing capacity”; Fig. 8A; [0048], wherein the non-audio input device of a patient device is a user interface screen of a mobile phone/smartphone; [0083], “internal memory 712, preferably random access memory (RAM) and/or read only memory (ROM) is coupled to additional memory 714 which will typically comprise flash memory, which may be integrated into the smartphone 700 or may comprise a removable flash card, or both”; [0085] The term "computer system", "computing device", "data processing system" and related terms, as used herein, are not limited to any particular type of computer system and encompasses servers, desktop computers, laptop computers, networked mobile wireless telecommunication computing devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, as well as other types of computer systems.”). Accordingly, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasoning.
Claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are dependent on claims 2, 9, and 16, respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samec et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0323485 A1) (hereinafter “Samec”).
Regarding claim 2, Samec discloses a method for aiding psychosis patients in distinguishing auditory psychosis symptoms, the method implemented on a patient device (Figs. 10 & 12; [0360-0362]), the method comprising:
monitoring for a non-audio input into a non-audio input device of the patient device by a patient, wherein the non-audio input is a deliberate, overt activation action by the patient that represents an affirmative, unambiguous indication that the patient is hearing sounds potentially symptomatic of psychosis (Figs. 10 & 12; [0268]; [0350]; [0355]; [0360], wherein “the systems 600, 2010 (FIGS. 12, 10) AR device 608 may be configured to detect the presence of delusional though processes, auditory hallucinations or visual hallucinations based on presenting psychiatric diagnostic questions to a user, detecting the user’s responses [i.e., user input(s) via camera and/or eye gaze-activated keyboard] to the questions, and comparing those responses with data about the ambient environment detected by environmental sensors 34 (FIG. 10). In some embodiments, the device 608 may be configured to implement passive monitoring, as disclosed herein, by detecting the user’s response to stimuli without presenting diagnostic stimuli such as questions or the like.”);
receiving a perception indication from the patient in association with the deliberate, overt activation action by the patient that represents an affirmative, unambiguous indication that the patient is hearing sounds potentially symptomatic of psychosis, wherein the perception indication is one of: an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds; and an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination (Figs. 10 & 12; [0268]; [0350]; [0355]; [0360], wherein “the systems 600, 2010 (FIGS. 12, 10) AR device 608 may be configured to detect the presence of delusional though processes, auditory hallucinations or visual hallucinations based on presenting psychiatric diagnostic questions to a user, detecting the user’s responses [i.e., user input(s) via camera and/or eye gaze-activated keyboard] to the questions, and comparing those responses with data about the ambient environment detected by environmental sensors 34 (FIG. 10). In some embodiments, the device 608 may be configured to implement passive monitoring, as disclosed herein, by detecting the user’s response to stimuli without presenting diagnostic stimuli such as questions of the like.”);
monitoring external ambient sounds, as obtained by a microphone of the patient device, and storing information associated with the external ambient sounds in a memory of the patient device (Figs. 10 & 12; [0225]; [0229]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0313]; [0315], where external (environmental) data obtained from the microphone(s) may be monitored and stored);
testing the external ambient sounds against a threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory (Figs. 10 & 12; [0225]; [0229]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0313]; [0315]; [0360], where the ambient environment data detected and stored by the sensors is compared with the user responses (tested against a threshold));
recording the perception indication as correct where one of the following is true: the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination and the ambient sounds fail to satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory (Fig. 12; [0234]; [0360-0362]; [0382], based on the results of the comparison, the system detects the presence of delusional thought processes, auditory hallucinations, or visual hallucinations, and further, one or more neurological conditions, and stores the results of the analysis); or the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds and the ambient sounds satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory; [or]
recording the perception indication as incorrect where one of the following is true: the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are experiencing an auditory hallucination and the ambient sounds satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory; or the perception indication is an indication that the patient perceives that they are hearing actual sounds and the ambient sounds fail to satisfy the threshold based on the information associated with the external ambient sounds in the memory.
Regarding claim 3, Samec further discloses wherein testing the ambient sounds against the threshold comprises test the ambient sounds against the threshold locally on the patient device (Figs. 10 & 12; [0225]; [0229]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0313]; [0315]; [0347-0348]; [0360], the data received and/or stored may be analyzed locally at the device 608, or may be analyzed remotely).
Regarding claim 4, Samec further discloses wherein testing the ambient sounds against the threshold comprises testing the ambient sounds against the threshold remotely by transmitting the ambient sounds from the patient device to a remote computer system and receiving threshold testing results from the remote computer system at the patient device (Figs. 10 & 12; [0225]; [0229]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0313]; [0315]; [0347-0348]; [0360]; [0376], the data received and/or stored may be analyzed locally at the device 608, or may be analyzed remotely).
Regarding claim 7, Samec further discloses wherein the perception indication is subsumed within the deliberate, overt activation action by the patient that represents an affirmative, unambiguous indication that the patient is hearing sounds potentially symptomatic of psychosis (Figs. 10 & 12; [0268]; [0350]; [0355]; [0360], wherein “the systems 600, 2010 (FIGS. 12, 10) AR device 608 may be configured to detect the presence of delusional though processes, auditory hallucinations or visual hallucinations based on presenting psychiatric diagnostic questions to a user, detecting the user’s responses [i.e., user input(s) via camera and/or eye gaze-activated keyboard] to the questions, and comparing those responses with data about the ambient environment detected by environmental sensors 34 (FIG. 10). In some embodiments, the device 608 may be configured to implement passive monitoring, as disclosed herein, by detecting the user’s response to stimuli without presenting diagnostic stimuli such as questions of the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Samec further discloses wherein the threshold is a minimum confidence level associated with voice activity detection of the ambient sounds (Figs. 10 & 12; [0225]; [0229]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0311]; [0313]; [0315]; [0360-0362], where the ambient environment data (i.e., voice) detected and stored by the sensors is compared with the user responses (tested against a threshold), and based on the results of the comparison, the system detects the presence of delusional though processes, auditory hallucinations, or visual hallucinations).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a device of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning (see further Samec, wherein the patient device comprises a microphone ([0017]; [0229]; [0311-0313]); a memory (Figs. 9D & 10; [0007]; [0291]; [0303]; [0309]; [0315]; [0346-0347], where local data processing module 140 comprising a memory may be fixedly attached to frame 64, and/or wherein system 2010 may be configured to collect and store data obtained through any of the sensors and/or inputs); a non-audio input device (Figs. 10 & 12; [0268]; [0350]; [0355]; [0360], where a camera may be used to capture images of the eye and/or tissue around the eye to detect user inputs (e.g., gaze-activated keyboard) and/or to monitor the physiological state of the user); and a processor (Fig. 9D; [0007]; [0291], where the local data processing module 140 comprising a processor may be fixedly attached to the frame 64)).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a device of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a device of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is a device of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a device of claim 8 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 2 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning (see further, Samec, [0393]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 3 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8 and is thereby rejected for similar 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec in view of Attias et al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0313315 A1) (hereinafter “Attias”).
Regarding claim 5, Samec does not further disclose generating a report indicating correctness of a prior series of perception indications. However, Attias teaches this limitation ([0033-0035], where a user is provided with a feedback report comprising a plurality of test results, each test result comprising a test title, lower normal range limit, higher normal range limit, and results of last test). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand Samec’s techniques for mental status testing ([0360-0362]) with Attias’ technique for improving auditory perception in order to help determine how to improve the ability to perceive different auditory events (Attias, [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Samec does not further disclose, however, Attias teaches wherein the report further comprises at least one of: (a) recommendations for improving discrimination between auditory hallucinations and ambient sounds; and (b) accuracy trends for the perception indications to monitor progress of the patient over time ([0033]; [0115]; [0118]; [0172]; [0174], where patients are trained with a specific program aimed to improve their auditory performance, and wherein recommendations and instructions, as well as feedback information (i.e., trending in the right direction), may be provided directly to the patient). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand Samec’s techniques for mental status testing ([0360-0362]) with Attias’ technique for improving auditory perception in order to help determine how to improve the ability to perceive different auditory events (Attias, [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a device of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is a device of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 5 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6 and is thereby rejected for similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 10,068,060 B2 – This reference teaches using audio data as inputs into a risk model for determination of a psychotic-episode-risk parameter, where the audio data is processed to determine aspects of the voice and/or mood of a patient to detect changes in mental state that are indicative of entrance into a certain psychotic state (e.g., schizophrenia).
U.S. Pub. 2020/0077902 A1 – This reference teaches using a correspondence module to determine whether reconstructed neural representations of speech and sounds correspond to real-life audio stimuli, or whether the reconstructed neural representations of speech and sounds correspond to auditory hallucinations.
U.S. Pub. 2018/0366143 A1 – This reference teaches analyzing a user’s speech to detect symptoms of a mental health disorder, wherein a sentiment of the audio data is determined and correlated to clinical information associated with symptoms of a mental health disorder, and wherein the initial determination is sent to a second device to determine and/or verify whether or not the symptom event was falsely recognized.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights