DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed on 1/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 a judicial exception (i.e, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-15 are drawn to a method, and claims 16-20 are drawn to an apparatus.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? (Prong One) If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? (Prong Two) A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method and system are drawn to providing healthcare support and counseling to a patient with a known condition.
In particular, Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a known condition for a user;
monitoring the user for one or more physical indications related to the known condition; and
providing counseling for the known condition to the user responsive to observation of the one or more monitored physical indications
Similarly, claims 10 and 16 recite:
receiving an indication of a known condition for a user;
receiving input from the user related to the known condition; and
providing counseling for the known condition to the user responsive to the received input...
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16 recite(s) additional limitation(s), including: computing apparatus, comprising: a processor and a memory. However, the additional elements is/are generic components that perform well-understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “processors 502 may be capable of processing instructions stored in storage device 512 or memory 504. Examples of processors 502 include any one or more of a microprocessor, a controller, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a neural processing unit (NPU), an image signal processor (ISP), a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or similar discrete or integrated logic circuitry. " (par. Par. 63 of PG-Pub US 2025/0246290) The disclosure also states: “The term computing device, in general, whether employed as a client and/or as a server, or otherwise, refers at least to a processor and a memory connected by a communication bus. A “processor” and/or “processing circuit” for example, is understood to connote a specific structure such as a central processing unit (CPU), digital signal processor (DSP), graphics processing unit (GPU), image signal processor (ISP) and/or neural processing unit (NPU), or a combination thereof, of a computing device which may include a control unit and an execution unit..” (par. 70)
The application explains: “FIG. 5 shows a block diagram of a general-purpose computerized system, consistent with an example embodiment. FIG. 5 illustrates only one particular example of computing device 500, and other computing devices 500 may be used in other embodiments. Although computing device 500 is shown as a standalone computing device, computing device 500 may be any component or system that includes one or more processors or another suitable computing environment for executing software instructions.” (Par. 60; see also par. 12) Such language underscores that the applicant's perceived invention/ novelty focuses on the computerized implementation of the abstract idea, not the underlying structure of generic system components.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 further recite: “via a large language model trained on the condition.” As currently drafted, the recitation of a language model in the claims fails to recite significantly more, and amounts to adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. (See MPEP 2106.05(A))
The recitation of “via a large language model trained on the condition”
recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Moreover, as drafted, the claims invoke the use of a large language model merely as a tool to perform an existing process. (i.e. providing medical support/counseling to a user based upon received information regarding the condition).
Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)). Among these are the following features, which are recited in the claims:
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claims 2-9 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-9 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 2-9 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 11-15 are dependent from Claim 10 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 10. However, the additional limitations of the claims 11-15 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 11-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are dependent from Claim 16 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 16. However, the additional limitations of the claims 17-20 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 17-20 are also 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)(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) 1-3; 8-12; 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dent (US 20250111940 A1).
Claim 1 Dent discloses a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a known condition for a user; (par. 39- receive user input: When a patient asks a specific question-such as an inquiry about a symptom (e.g., a rash)—the system may inject relevant patient data, including current medical history, medications, and known allergies, into the LLM prompt. This process may allow the system to formulate the most likely cause of the symptom, providing a highly accurate and personalized response. For example, in a scenario where the patient presents symptoms such as dizziness, the LLM, through prompt injection, may integrate the patient's pre-existing conditions like hypertension and current medications, such as beta-blockers, into the query. This capability may allow for a contextually relevant diagnosis and the formulation of a tailored follow-up question or health suggestion; par. 79 )
monitoring the user for one or more physical indications related to the known condition; (par. 43: The chatbot not only may facilitate patient onboarding with real-time conversational interaction but also may monitor patient data to suggest timely follow-up actions, such as routine screenings or medication adjustments, ensuring continuous personalized care) and
providing counseling for the known condition to the user responsive to observation of the one or more monitored physical indications via a large language model trained on the condition.(par. 43; par. 45-real world evidence and recommendations; par. 49-providing medical guidance; par. 18, par. 20-use of LLMs)
Claim 2. Dent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical indications suggest one or more physical injuries or abnormalities. (par. 79-80-symptom data)
Claim 3. Dent teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the counseling comprises first aid for the one or more physical injuries or abnormalities. (fig. 4 Patient-specific guidance may be returned by the HealthLynked AI Subystem 124 and communicated in spoken and/or written form to the user 140 through the ARI Subsystem 122. For example, and without limitation, the patient-specific guidance may comprise a medical recommendation(s) 424 based on the medical profile of the user 140, and/or proactive patient care 426 tailored to the user 140 (e.g., reminders for needed tests such as a colonoscopy or a pap smear))
Claim 8 Dent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the large language model comprises a generative pretrained transformer operable to provide the large language model with contextual understanding such that the large language model may provide a relevant response to a variety of inputs. (par. 18- embodiments of the present invention are related to an advanced patient data management system that may utilize a large language model (LLM) algorithm such as a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) platform for human conversation simulation in medical settings.)
Claim 9 Dent teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical indications comprise one or more of heart rate, movement, body temperature, blood oxygen, speech, or respiratory rate. (par. 44- This analysis may include examining factors such as geographic location, medication use, genetic predispositions, medical history, daily activities, and environmental exposures.; par. 92-input of exercise information)
Claims 10 and 16. Dent discloses a computing apparatus, comprising:a processor and a memory (par. 55; par. 106) a large language model stored in the memory and operable to execute on the processor (par. 18-20; par. 107-108)
a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a known condition for a user; (par. 39- receive user input: When a patient asks a specific question-such as an inquiry about a symptom (e.g., a rash)—the system may inject relevant patient data, including current medical history, medications, and known allergies, into the LLM prompt. This process may allow the system to formulate the most likely cause of the symptom, providing a highly accurate and personalized response. For example, in a scenario where the patient presents symptoms such as dizziness, the LLM, through prompt injection, may integrate the patient's pre-existing conditions like hypertension and current medications, such as beta-blockers, into the query. This capability may allow for a contextually relevant diagnosis and the formulation of a tailored follow-up question or health suggestion; par. 79 )
receiving input from the user related to the known condition; (Fig. 4; par. 87-94: may present a customizable avatar to greet and guide 403 the user 140 to enter pertinent medical information (e.g., in the user's language of choice) and
providing counseling for the known condition to the user responsive to the received input via a large language model trained on the condition, the large language model adapted based on the received input. .(par. 43; par. 45-real world evidence and recommendations; par. 49-providing medical guidance; par. 18, par. 20-use of LLMs; par. 112-adaptation to user input)
claim 11. Dent teaches the method of claim 10, wherein adapting the large language model based on the received input comprises training a user-specific version of the large language model based on the received input. (par. 112-113-user-specific preferences accommodated)
claim 12 Dent teaches the method of claim 10, wherein adapting the large language model based on the received input comprises adapting a personality of the large language model based on the received input, and wherein the received input comprises a user prompt provided to the large language model. (par. 112-113- The system offers patients the ability to interact with a virtual physician avatar of their choice, with customizable options for gender (male or female) and ethnicity, enhancing patient comfort and engagement.; par. 114-Integration of routine screening and vaccine guidelines based on age, gender, and medical history, providing patients with up-to-date and personalized health maintenance advice.)
claim 15 Dent teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising providing a reference or a factual basis for the provided counseling. (par. 87- the patient-specific guidance may comprise a medical recommendation(s) 424 based on the medical profile of the user 140, and/or proactive patient care 426 tailored to the user 140 (e.g., reminders for needed tests such as a colonoscopy or a pap smear)
Claim 17 Dent teaches the apparatus of claim 16, the computing apparatus further comprising an input operable to monitor the user for one or more physical indications related to the known condition. (par. 43: The chatbot not only may facilitate patient onboarding with real-time conversational interaction but also may monitor patient data to suggest timely follow-up actions, such as routine screenings or medication adjustments, ensuring continuous personalized care)
Claim 19. Dent teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the large language model is further adapted based on the received input from the user. (par. 112-113-user-specific preferences accommodated)
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) 4-7, 13-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (US 20250111940 A1) in view of Rollwage et al (US 20240398333 A1)
Claims 4-5. Dent teaches the method of claim 1, as explained but does not expressly disclose herein the known condition comprises a psychological condition or wherein the psychological condition comprises one or more of stress management, anxiety, depression, panic disorder, or phobias.
Rollwage discloses a system and method for providing guidance wherein the known condition comprises a psychological condition or wherein the psychological condition comprises one or more of stress management, anxiety, depression, panic disorder, or phobias. (par. 167; par. 265- a mental health recommender system domain is behavioural activation, a technique to alleviate symptoms, particularly in depression; par. 307)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Dent with the teaching of Rollwage to provide support for psychological conditions, with the motivation of maximising therapeutic alliance, driving longer term user engagement, and supporting better patient outcomes and recovery. (Rollwage: par. 269)
Claims 6-7 Dent teaches the method of claim 1, as explained but does not expressly disclose, wherein monitoring comprises using a smart watch to monitor the one or more physical indications (claim 6) or providing counseling comprises providing counseling via the smart watch or a device linked to the smart watch. (claim 7)
Rollwage discloses a method wherein monitoring comprises using a smart watch to monitor the one or more physical indications (par. 249- The interface 70 may interact with the user at predetermined times, or at predetermined time intervals, or in response to certain activities performed on the user device 200 e.g. after the completion of a voice or video call, or upon detecting certain keywords being entered via the user interface 70 or upon detection of certain physiological signals via sensors in the user device 200 or another device in communication with the user device 200 such as a smart watch or other physiological sensor; par. 318) and to providing counseling comprises providing counseling via the smart watch or a device linked to the smart watch. (par. 249- a mental health app 70 where patients interact with a mental health chatbot through text conversations is provided. As shown in FIG. 6, a chatbot interface 70 is shown. The chatbot presents text to the user of a user device 200 and allows responses to be input by the user, for example in text format inputted via a physical device control or a device graphical user interface 120 (for example, using an “on-screen” keyboard), or by voice… The interface 70 may interact with the user at predetermined times, or at predetermined time intervals, or in response to certain activities performed on the user device 200 e.g. after the completion of a voice or video call, or upon detecting certain keywords being entered via the user interface 70 … another device in communication with the user device 200 such as a smart watch or other physiological sensor.)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Dent with the teaching of Rollwage to include the use of a smartwatch to track and communicate with the patient. As suggested by Rollwage, one would have been motivated to include this feature to capture the physiological aspects of a patient's disorder and gain deeper insights into their activities (par. 319), and to facilitate immediate and convenient follow-up to support the patient (par. 250)
claims 13-14 Dent teaches the method of claim 10 as explained but does not expressly disclose wherein the large language model is further operable to remember a state of prior interactions with the user, or wherein the remembered state of prior interactions with a user enable the large language model to provide consistent conversational guidance across multiple login sessions for the user.
Rollwage discloses a method wherein the large language model is further operable to remember a state of prior interactions with the user, or wherein the remembered state of prior interactions with a user enable the large language model to provide consistent conversational guidance across multiple login sessions for the user
(par. 429- The initial system prompt may also include information relating to the user such as, for example, interventions previously provided by the dialogue application 102, interventions previously performed by the user, a clinical state of the user following previous interventions, previous system utterances and/or system responses during previous engagement with the user, key life events of the user, a therapy goal of the user and/or the like. Such information relating to the user may be included as a summary in the initial system prompt.)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Dent with the teaching of Rollwage to allow the LLM to “remember” information provided over multiple sessions. One would have been motivated to include this feature to encourage a more natural and user-specific interaction with the patient and encourage better user engagement.
Claim 18. Dent teaches the apparatus of claim 17, as explained but does not expressly disclose wherein the input comprises a smart watch.
Rollwage discloses a method wherein monitoring comprises using a smart watch to monitor the one or more physical indications (i.e. input from a smart watch) (par. 249- The interface 70 may interact with the user at predetermined times, or at predetermined time intervals, or in response to certain activities performed on the user device 200 e.g. after the completion of a voice or video call, or upon detecting certain keywords being entered via the user interface 70 or upon detection of certain physiological signals via sensors in the user device 200 or another device in communication with the user device 200 such as a smart watch or other physiological sensor; par. 318) and to providing counseling comprises providing counseling via the smart watch or a device linked to the smart watch. (par. 249- a mental health app 70 where patients interact with a mental health chatbot through text conversations is provided. As shown in FIG. 6, a chatbot interface 70 is shown. The chatbot presents text to the user of a user device 200 and allows responses to be input by the user, for example in text format inputted via a physical device control or a device graphical user interface 120 (for example, using an “on-screen” keyboard), or by voice… The interface 70 may interact with the user at predetermined times, or at predetermined time intervals, or in response to certain activities performed on the user device 200 e.g. after the completion of a voice or video call, or upon detecting certain keywords being entered via the user interface 70 … another device in communication with the user device 200 such as a smart watch or other physiological sensor.)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Dent with the teaching of Rollwage to include the use of a smartwatch to track and communicate with the patient. As suggested by Rollwage, one would have been motivated to include this feature to capture the physiological aspects of a patient's disorder and gain deeper insights into their activities (par. 319), and to facilitate immediate and convenient follow-up to support the patient (par. 250)
Claim 20. Dent teaches the apparatus of claim 19, as explained but does not expressly disclose wherein the large language model is further operable to remember a state of prior interactions with the user to provide consistent conversational guidance across multiple login sessions for the user.
Rollwage discloses an apparatus wherein the remembered state of prior interactions with a user enable the large language model to provide consistent conversational guidance across multiple login sessions for the user. (par. 429- The initial system prompt may also include information relating to the user such as, for example, interventions previously provided by the dialogue application 102, interventions previously performed by the user, a clinical state of the user following previous interventions, previous system utterances and/or system responses during previous engagement with the user, key life events of the user, a therapy goal of the user and/or the like. Such information relating to the user may be included as a summary in the initial system prompt.)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of Dent with the teaching of Rollwage to allow the LLM to “remember” information provided over multiple sessions. One would have been motivated to include this feature to encourage a more natural and user-specific interaction with the patient and encourage better user engagement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
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 at 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 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684