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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2025 are in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Priority Claim U.S. Provisional Application app# 63/483,662 and PCT/ US2024/014728 are acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Refer to page 1 and page 7 of applicant spec.
35 U.S.C 112(b)
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.
Claim 1-20, 31-50, 57-58, and 63 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Relative terminology or terms of degree render a claim indefinite when the specification provides no objective standard for measurement.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 17-19, 31, 37-39, and 41, 47-49, 57 and 63:
The terms "important to the patient" and "non-specific to the patient" impose a highly subjective standard without defining a threshold or decision rule to separate them. The limitations "trusted voice," "patient-optimized," and "enhance" depend entirely on unmeasured patient perceptions and undefined baselines for improvement.
Lacking proper antecedent basis.
Claim 50 recites "a prompt selected from the set of primary prompts," but this set has not been previously introduced in the claim chain. An examination of independent claim 41 and intervening claim 49 reveals recitations of primary topics and primary responses, but no primary prompts.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, 32-40, 42-49, 57-58, and 63 mirror the same problem identify above, and are rejected in the ground of the same analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Non-Statutory Subject matter:
Claims 1, 31, 57, and 63 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each claim recites informational content and a “patient-optimized voice response software application” without positively reciting the physical machine structure needed to place the claim within a statutory category. In claim 1, the recited “topics,” “prompts,” “responses,” “ECB script,” “ECB audio database,” and software application define content and software logic, not a machine. In claim 31, the same deficiency remains, even though the claim is labeled a “system,” because the body still recites only dialogue content, script/database content, and software functionality. In claims 57 and 63, the added phrase “based on a telephony system” merely states a technological environment and does not add telephony hardware as claim structure.
The examiner for the purpose of compact prosecution would interpret the claims 1–10, 31–40, 57, 63 as being machine category in view of future applicant amendment and to continue with the subject matter analysis below.
Note: 2–10, 32–40, 57, 63 are rejected by the same ground above, because not remove the non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection — 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1–20, 31–50, 57, 58, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept amounting to significantly more than the exception itself.
Statutory Categories Analysis
The claims are directed to statutory subject matter, encompassing the following statutory categories:
Machine (Claims 1–10, 31–40, 57, 63): Interpreted as a machine for compact prosecution, refer to above non-statutory rejection above for further details.
Process (Claims 11–20, 41–50, 58): Because the claims recite active methods.
Having confirmed the claims are directed to statutory subject matter, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception Identification
Step 2A, Prong One determines whether the claim recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Per MPEP § 2106.04, the Examiner evaluates the claim as a whole under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to identify whether the claimed concept falls within a recognized category of abstract ideas.
The whole invention relates to a system and method for managing repetitive conversations between a caregiver and a patient. As stated in the specification, the system extracts topics from dialogue, categorizes those topics as primary or secondary, maps patient prompts to pre-configured responses, and delivers those responses through an automated chatbot (Spec., paras. [0002]–[0005], [0017]–[0036]).
Representative Independent Claim 1: The non-bolded portions represent the abstract idea. The bolded portions represent additional elements evaluated later in Prong Two and Step 2B.
Claim 1.
A conversational management system configured and adapted to enhance a repetitive communication between a caregiver and a patient, the system comprising:
a multiplicity of topics extracted from a dialogue between the patient and the caregiver, the multiplicity of topics comprising:
a set of primary topics that are repetitive and important to the patient, and a set of secondary topics that are repetitive and non-specific to the patient; a multiplicity of prompts extracted from the multiplicity of topics, the multiplicity of prompts originating from the patient and comprising:
a set of primary prompts related to the set of primary topics, and a set of secondary prompts related to the set of secondary topics;
a multiplicity of responses derived from the multiplicity of topics, the multiplicity of responses originating from an enhanced chatbot (ECB) and comprising:
a set of primary responses mapped to the set of primary prompts, and a set of secondary responses mapped to the set of secondary prompts;
an ECB script that connects the set of primary prompts to the set of primary responses and connects the set of secondary prompts to the set of secondary responses;
an ECB audio database that contains the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses in a voice recognizable to the patient as a trusted voice;
and a patient-optimized voice response software application configured and adapted to deliver selected content from the ECB audio database according to the ECB script, thus supporting a prompt-response dialogue with the patient to enhance the repetitive communication between the caregiver and the patient.
Claim 11.
A method for creating a conversational management system configured and adapted to support a prompt-response dialogue with a patient to enhance a repetitive telephonic communication between a caregiver and a patient, the method comprising:
identifying a multiplicity of topics during a dialogue between the patient and the caregiver;
identifying a set of primary topics that are repetitive and important to the patient;
identifying a set of secondary topics that are repetitive and non-specific to the patient;
extracting a set of primary prompts from the set of primary topics;
extracting a set of secondary prompts from the set of secondary topics;
establishing a set of primary responses mapped to the set of primary prompts;
establishing a set of secondary responses mapped to the set of secondary prompts;
creating an enhanced chatbot (ECB) script that connects the set of primary prompts to the set of primary responses and connects the set of secondary prompts to the set of secondary responses;
creating an ECB audio database that contains the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses in a voice recognizable to the patient as a trusted voice;
and
loading the ECB script and ECB audio database into a patient-optimized voice response software application, thereby providing the conversational management system configured and adapted to support the prompt-response dialogue with the patient to enhance the repetitive telephonic communication between the caregiver and the patient.
Note: Referenced applicant language comes from public application number US20260011454A1.
Classification Abstract Idea Rational:
Under their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (MPEP § 2111), the independent claims 1, 11, 31, and 41 abstract idea recite extracting and categorizing conversational topics into primary and secondary groups, extracting corresponding spoken prompts, deriving mapped responses, and connecting these components into a script to deliver voice responses that manage repetitive dialogue between a caregiver and a patient. This process aligns with the following abstract idea categories:
Mental Process (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)): Concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, fall within the mental processes category of abstract ideas. The independent claims 1, 11, 31, and 41 recite "extracting" topics and prompts from a dialogue, categorizing them into a "set of primary topics" and "secondary topics," and "deriving" a "multiplicity of responses" mapped to those prompts. These limitations inherently describe the cognitive steps of observing a conversation, evaluating which statements are important or repetitive, and judging what the appropriate response should be, which fits the MPEP definition of a mental process because they require mental interpretation of spoken words. The specification supports this, stating: "Primary topics and secondary topics relevant to a given patient can often be discovered, developed, or categorized through observation and/or interaction with the patient" (Spec., para. [0048]), evidencing that the claimed extraction and categorization are rooted in human cognitive observation. A human could entirely mirror these mental steps by listening to a conversation, evaluating the repeated subjects, and writing down the categorization of topics and planned responses using a pen and paper.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)): Concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or human behavior, are abstract ideas under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The independent claims 1, 11, 31, and 41 recite using an "ECB script that connects" the prompts to the responses to "enhance a repetitive communication between a caregiver and a patient" and "delivering a unidirectional positive reinforcement communication." This describes a managed workflow of interaction, which falls under the sub-category of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships, because the claimed steps explicitly organize and structure the interpersonal dialogue pattern to achieve a therapeutic or reassuring outcome for the patient. The specification supports this, stating: "One common area of challenge for caregivers is the need to support the patient through periods of repetitive conversation, repeated questions, and recurring themes in dialogue" (Spec., para. [0004]), which demonstrates that the system's core function is organizing the relational interaction between the caregiver and the patient to manage behavioral challenges. A human caregiver could mirror this organizational activity by manually following a script to deliver the predefined comforting responses whenever the patient brings up a known topic, thereby managing the interaction without any specific computer technology.
Manual Replication Scenario (Human Equivalence)
The abstract nature of the claims is reinforced because the entire process is analogous to fundamental human activities:
While implementing this dialogue management system using a computer and audio database might increase the efficiency, speed, or consistency of delivering responses to the patient, relying on a computer to perform an abstract process more quickly or accurately does not negate the abstract nature of the underlying mental and interpersonal steps according to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
A human caregiver listens to a patient's dialogue, mentally identifies the repetition of a specific worry, and categorizes it as a "primary topic." The caregiver notes the exact phrase the patient uses, extracting it as a "primary prompt," and derives a comforting "primary response" to address it. The caregiver writes these prompt-response pairs into a physical notebook, establishing a literal "script." When the patient later repeats the prompt, the caregiver or another family member acting as a "trusted voice" reads the mapped response directly from the notebook to the patient. This sequence perfectly mirrors the extraction, mapping, scripting, and delivering limitations of the independent claims without requiring any software or hardware.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The dependent claims 2–10, 12–20, 32–40, 42–50, 57, 58, and 63 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 12, 32, and 42: These claims recite under BRI the mental selection of therapeutic communication strategies by requiring responses to include "active listening, understanding, redirection, and positive reinforcement." Evaluating a patient's emotional state and judging which psychological approach to use is a Mental Process (evaluation and judgment).
Claims 3, 13, 33, and 43: These claims recite under BRI the utilization of standard conversational follow-up techniques by requiring secondary responses to comprise "clarification, repetition, and confirmation." Applying standard active listening techniques to maintain a dialogue is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity (managing interactions between people).
Claims 4–6, 14–16, 34–36, and 44–46: These claims recite under BRI the coordination of communication flow by specifying whether responses comprise "interactive or automated input, or both, from the caregiver." Deciding when a human speaks live versus when pre-planned responses are used is an administrative workflow decision, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity (managing personal behavior or relationships).
Claims 7–8, 17–18, 37–38, and 47–48: These claims recite under BRI the selection of familiar vocal characteristics to build patient trust by requiring a voice with "mannerisms derived from the patient, a family member... cadence, intensity, regional dialect, accent." Observing, evaluating, and matching human voice traits to soothe a patient is a cognitive judgment, which is a Mental Process (observation and evaluation).
Claims 9–10, 19–20, 39–40, and 49–50: These claims recite under BRI a method of varying replies to avoid unnatural repetition by using a "response randomizing function" to provide a "different response" to successive prompts. The human conversational technique of consciously choosing not to repeat oneself identically is a Mental Process, and automating it is a mathematical algorithm applied to human behavior.
Claims 57, 58, and 63: These claims recite under BRI executing the communication over a standard network by specifying the system is "based on a telephony system." This merely limits the abstract concept of interpersonal communication to a specific technological environment (a field-of-use), meaning the underlying concept remains a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
Because both the independent and dependent claims recite a method of organizing human activity (managing patient-caregiver dialogue) that relies on mental processes (evaluating, categorizing, and mapping conversational topics) a judicial exceptions the analysis must now proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims include additional elements that integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application by applying the exception in a way that reflects a specific technological improvement or another meaningful limit beyond for example simply linking it to a technological environment. The additional elements in the independent claims do not overcome Prong Two because they merely recite generic computing components utilized solely as a tool to execute the abstract dialogue management process, without improving the functioning of the underlying computer or chatbot technology itself.
Evaluation of independent Claims 1, 11, 31, and 41 Additional Elements
The additional elements to be evaluated are "an enhanced chatbot (ECB)", a "patient-optimized voice response software application", and an "ECB audio database".
Enhanced Chatbot (ECB) and Patient-Optimized Voice Response Software Application: The recitation of "an enhanced chatbot (ECB)" and "a patient-optimized voice response software application configured and adapted to deliver selected content... according to the ECB script" fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely instructs a generic computer system to perform the abstract organizational method. Under MPEP § 2106.05(f), claims that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited ECB and software application act strictly as execution engines to automate the abstract scripting and prompt-matching logic, failing to recite any specific technical mechanism that improves how chatbots operate or process natural language (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). The specification verifies that these elements function as generic execution tools, noting the system relies on existing enterprise platforms like "Dialogflow... IBM Watson Assistant, Amazon Lex, and Microsoft Bot Framework" (Spec., para. [0047]). Consequently, these elements merely invoke a general-purpose software application to apply the abstract idea, rather than effecting a technological improvement.
ECB Audio Database: The recitation of "an ECB audio database that contains the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses in a voice recognizable to the patient" fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The MPEP states that adding "insignificant extra-solution activity," such as mere data gathering or data storage, does not meaningfully limit an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g). The recited database serves solely to store the pre-recorded audio files utilized by the abstract conversational rules. Because storing mapped audio responses is a basic data storage function inherently required to execute the abstract idea of delivering pre-selected replies, it imposes no specific technological structure or improvement upon the database itself.
When viewed as a whole, the combination of these elements fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements simply amount to the sum of their parts. The combination of an audio database, an enhanced chatbot, and a voice response software application merely connects a standard data storage component with a generic execution engine to automate the human-driven, scripted conversation. Because this combination entirely confines the abstract idea to the technological environment of a virtual chatbot (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and relies on the software as a generic tool to blindly execute the human-defined communication rules (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the claims as a whole fail to reflect any concrete technological improvement to the underlying telephonic or computing systems.
Dependent Claims Analysis:
The dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, 32-33, and 42-43: These claims add communication characteristics such as "active listening, understanding, redirection, and positive reinforcement," as well as "clarification, repetition, and confirmation," which merely narrow the abstract idea. Specifying the psychological or conversational tactics used within the dialogue does not provide any technical mechanism, but simply limits the abstract idea.
Claims 4-8, 14-18, 34-38, and 44-48: These claims add parameters specifying that the inputs are "interactive or automated" and that the "trusted voice comprises one or more mannerisms" such as "cadence, intensity, regional dialect, accent, and cultural reference." This fails to improve computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)) because the human origin of the audio and the specific vocal characteristics are non-technical data content, they dictate the information the system stores and plays back, but they do not change or improve how the underlying audio software or chatbot structurally operates.
Claims 9-10, 19-20, 39-40, 49-50, 57, 58, and 63: These claims add a "telephone user interface," a "telephony system," and a "response randomizing function" that selects a different response for successive prompts. The recitation of a telephony system and interface is a mere field-of-use limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) that simply applies the abstract idea within a generic communications environment. Furthermore, the randomizing function fails to improve computer functionality (MPEP § 2106.05(a)) because it merely utilizes a generic mathematical selection tool to prevent the system from repeating the exact same audio file, acting solely as an instruction to execute the communication rules rather than a technological enhancement to the chatbot's processing
When viewed as a whole, the combination of these elements in the dependent and independent claims does not pass Prong Two. The combination merely links an abstract method of organizing human interaction with generic data content (caregiver voice mannerisms) and applies it within a specified technological environment (a telephony system) using off-the-shelf software execution tools (a chatbot with a randomizing function). Connecting a generic communication environment to an abstract script fails to supply a specific technical mechanism that improves the technology itself.
Because the independent and dependent claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate that abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, the claims are directed to a judicial exception, and the analysis must proceed to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept Analysis
Step 2B evaluates whether the claim limitations, other than the abstract idea, add an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself by looking for non-conventional, non-routine technological improvements.
Evaluation of independent Claims 1, 11, 31, and 41 Additional Elements
The additional elements to be evaluated are "an enhanced chatbot (ECB)", a "patient-optimized voice response software application", and an "ECB audio database".
Enhanced Chatbot (ECB) and Patient-Optimized Voice Response Software Application:
Applying an abstract idea using generic computer components or mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer does not provide significantly more under MPEP § 2106.05(f). The applicant explicitly admits that these software components are well-understood, routine, and conventional by stating: "One exemplary and non-limiting embodiment of a system... has been implemented by the inventors using Dialogflow; par. 0046," and further acknowledges that "[a]additional commercial platforms are available... including IBM Watson Assistant, Amazon Lex, and Microsoft Bot Framework" (Spec., para. [0046]). Because the claims simply instruct these commercially available enterprise virtual chatbots to execute the mapped conversational scripts, they merely automate the abstract idea on recognized, conventional platforms without adding a novel technical structure.
ECB Audio Database:
Utilizing a database to store predefined audio files is an insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and a generic computer function that does not add an inventive concept. The claims dictate that the database merely "contains the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses," meaning it acts solely as a generic repository to hold the data generated by the abstract human scripting process. The specification does not describe any novel technical structure or proprietary data-handling mechanism for this database, confirming it acts strictly as a conventional data storage tool required to play back the recorded dialogue. Additionally, “storing and retrieving information in memory” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
When viewed as a whole, the combination of these additional elements is not enough to provide an inventive concept because it merely links a standard data repository with a conventional, commercial chatbot platform to automate a human-authored script. This combination amounts to nothing more than the generic automation of an abstract method of organizing human interaction using explicitly admitted off-the-shelf computing components.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The new additional elements to be evaluated in the dependent claims are the "telephone user interface", "telephony system", and "response randomizing function". (Note: Claims 2-8, 12-18, 32-38, and 42-48 do not contain new technical additional elements; they merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying human communication tactics like active listening or non-technical audio characteristics like a caregiver's cadence, and therefore lack an inventive concept as explained in Prong One).
(Claims 9-10, 19-20, 39-40, 49-50): These claims add a "telephone user interface" and a "response randomizing function", which is MPEP § 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions / generic computer functions. The specification confirms this randomization is an existing, conventional tool of the off-the-shelf platform, stating: "Dialogflow supports custom audio creation and response randomization" (Spec., para. [0046]). Instructing a known chatbot to apply its built-in randomization feature to prevent repeating the same audio file is routine automation, not an inventive concept.
(Claims 57, 58, 63): These claims add a "telephony system", which is a mere field-of-use limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The specification confirms this is simply the conventional technological environment in which the chatbot operates, stating: "Dialogflow can operate in multiple modalities, including texting, phone calls, and web applications" (Spec., para. [0046]). Confining the use of the abstract communication script to an ordinary telephone network does not transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
When viewed as a whole, the combination of dependent claims and additional elements is not enough to provide an inventive concept because it merely applies the abstract organizational script within a standard telephony environment using the built-in, conventional randomization tools of commercially available chatbots. Combining an abstract idea with a field-of-use limitation and a standard software feature does not yield a specific technological improvement.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept because they merely automate a human conversational method using explicitly admitted conventional, off-the-shelf chatbot and telephony technologies. Therefore, Claims 1-20, 31-50, 57-58, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20, 31-50, 57-58, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (US20210027759).
Ogawa teaches, Claim 1.
A conversational management system configured and adapted to enhance a repetitive communication between a caregiver and a patient, the system comprising: ("A smart and scalable dementia assistant device is provided that converses with a patient in voices familiar with the patient", Abstract; "help and assist the dementia patient with day to day living activities and social interactions as well as helping, assisting, monitoring, and taking medical actions by family, relatives, caregivers, doctors", Par. 0006, Ogawa)
a multiplicity of topics extracted from a dialogue between the patient and the caregiver, the multiplicity of topics comprising: (Ogawa, a library of frequently asked questions FAQs and frequent statements FSs paragraph 0270, and all words must be considered, User 3 is a visitor eg a caregiver and records the oral conversation paragraph 0089, paragraph 0061-0062, various topics….. including, but not limited to, common family topics of a given person with dementia, common daily activities of a given person with dementia, common healthcare terms relevant to a person with dementia, etc. par. 0075 , par. 0167, par. 0233 Personalized Patient FAQ Library in FIG. 11)
Ogawa, read on a system or method capable of identifying and pulling out more than one subject or theme from a spoken interaction involving a person receiving care and a person providing care. Ogawa's "oral conversation" recorded by a "caregiver" (Paragraph 0089) reads directly on the claimed "dialogue between the patient and the caregiver". Furthermore, Ogawa’s process where a "new interaction... is marked as being new and stored" (Paragraph 0062) reads on the term "extracted" because the act of marking a specific segment within a recording and pulling it into memory constitutes the isolation of that data from the dialogue. Ogawa identifies specific topics within these extracted segments, such as "common family topics," "healthcare terms," and "daily activities" (Paragraph 0075), alongside analytical themes like "dementia trends" regarding a patient's "agitation" or "anxiety" (Paragraph 0167).
a set of primary topics that are repetitive and important to the patient, and a set of secondary topics that are repetitive and non-specific to the patient; (Ogawa, See at least, The bot used herein has various language dictionaries that are focused on various topics (e.g. including, but not limited to, common family topics of a given person with dementia, common daily activities of a given person with dementia, common healthcare terms relevant to a person with dementia...) (Paragraph 0075) With respect to the Personalized Patient FAQ Library... there are a library of questions and answers frequently asked by a patient... This creates a more familiar, relaxing and calm experience for the patient. Paragraph 0233 ...questions that are frequently being asked by the patient... Paragraph 0170)
Ogawa discloses categorizing frequent conversational topics into personalized, family-oriented subjects (primary/important) and general healthcare subjects (secondary/non-specific).
a multiplicity of prompts extracted from the multiplicity of topics, the multiplicity of prompts originating from the patient and comprising: Ogawa, See at least, the user device detects that the person with dementia has made a Frequent Action (FA) (e.g. Question, Statement, Gesture, Expression, etc.) (Paragraph 0314) The NLP module listen's to the patient asking a question... (Paragraph 0169) A device detects a person saying: Tell me what my daughter's birth date is. (Paragraph 0206) A device detects a person saying: Tell me when to go to the doctor's appointment. (Paragraph 0203)
Ogawa discloses identifying multiple prompts (questions/statements) from the patient and classifying them into primary prompts (family-related questions) and secondary prompts (healthcare-related questions) derived from their respective topical libraries.
a set of primary prompts related to the set of primary topics, and a set of secondary prompts related to the set of secondary topics; (Ogawa, See at least, A device detects a person saying: Tell me what my daughter's birth date is. Paragraph 0206 A device detects a person saying: Tell me when to go to the doctor's appointment. Paragraph 0203 The NLP module listen's to the patient asking a question to a specific person... Paragraph 0169)
Ogawa discloses classifying the patient's inputs into primary prompts (e.g., family questions) corresponding to primary topics and secondary prompts (e.g., healthcare questions) corresponding to secondary topics.
a multiplicity of responses derived from the multiplicity of topics, the multiplicity of responses originating from an enhanced chatbot (ECB) and comprising: (Ogawa, See at least, The faster access memory 1502 has stored on it, amongst other things, a library of frequently asked questions FAQs and frequent statements FSs, and corresponding responses to these FAQs and FSs. Paragraph 0270 A synthesized bot and related bot libraries are constructed based on the persona data... The synthesized bot, for example, is a bot that uses one or more images, video, audio data, text data, etc. Paragraph 0307 Voice synthesizer bot calls this specific user voice template library when patient converses... Paragraph 0192)
Ogawa discloses identifying and linking specific answers to specific questions across personalized (primary) and general (secondary) libraries.
a set of primary responses mapped to the set of primary prompts, and a set of secondary responses mapped to the set of secondary prompts; (Ogawa, See at least, With respect to the Personalized Patient FAQ Library... there are a library of questions and answers frequently asked by a patient. The answers are provided by family members, doctors, friends, and caregivers. (Paragraph 0233) The smart device accesses the faster access memory 1502 and identifies the appropriate response (e.g. audio, visual, text, etc.) to the asked FAQ or the said FS. (Paragraph 0275))
Ogawa discloses identifying and linking specific answers to specific questions across personalized (primary) and general (secondary) libraries.
an ECB script that connects the set of primary prompts to the set of primary responses and connects the set of secondary prompts to the set of secondary responses; (Ogawa, See at least, The data science servers 104 include a data science algorithms library and a policy and rules engine. For example, the policy and rules engine includes policies and rules that are specific to a person... Paragraph 0160 Store appropriate response and context mapping in local memory, in the bot library corresponding to the synthesized bot. Paragraph 0327 The smart device accesses the faster access memory 1502 and identifies the appropriate response (e.g. audio, visual, text, etc.) to the asked FAQ or the said FS. Paragraph 0275)
Ogawa discloses a rules engine and context mapping logic (script) that functionally links the asked questions (prompts) to their correct answers (responses) across all categories.
an ECB audio database that contains the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses in a voice recognizable to the patient as a trusted voice; ( Ogawa, See at least, With respect to the Personalized User Voice Libraries... this library of user voices is used so that the patient can converse with, what appears to the patient to be, a specific person instead of a generic computer voice... Paragraph 0235 When a patient asks a question to a son, for example, the smart device responds using a synthesized voice that sound like the patient's son. Paragraph 0235 ...any response in the digital library can be reproduced in the voice of a spouse, family member, friend, care giver, doctor, or health care provider. This is important because this calms the patient down... Paragraph 0168)
Ogawa discloses a digital voice library (audio database) capable of playing any response using the synthesized, recognizable voice of a trusted family member or friend.
and a patient-optimized voice response software application configured and adapted to deliver selected content from the ECB audio database according to the ECB script, thus supporting a prompt-response dialogue with the patient to enhance the repetitive communication between the caregiver and the patient. (Ogawa, See at least, smart device(s) and smart cloud ecosystem(s) interact with the dementia patient throughout the entire day. (Paragraph 0046) The smart devices output audio or visual (or both) data using the identified appropriate response and the identified voice library. (Paragraph 0276) The intent and goal is to provide a seamless, natural conversation between the patient and the local device so that the patient does not become frustrated... (Paragraph 0170) This level of smart device conversation with recognized voices calms the loved one and provides the sense of security that loved one's, in person, cannot provide around the clock. (Paragraph 0047))
Ogawa discloses a software application that conducts a natural, prompt-response conversation with the patient using mapped voice responses to supplement and improve upon physical caregiver interactions.
Ogawa teaches, Claim 2.
The system according to claim 1, the set of primary responses including two or more characteristics selected from the group consisting of active listening, understanding, redirection, and positive reinforcement. (NLP can be performed to determine a patient's calmness, sadness, agitation, fear, frustration, happiness Par. 0167, if a person with dementia is focused too much on a first topic, the OCD interjects at an appropriate time to help the person think about a second topic Par. 0098,utonomously plays favorite uplifting music, videos, slides shows Par. 0229, )
Ogawa teaches, Claim 3.
The system according to claim 2, the set of secondary responses comprising clarification, repetition, and confirmation. (Ogawa, See at least, I need to look up something and will get back to you Paragraph 0289 autonomously reminding the patient to take my prescription medicines Paragraph 0237 autonomously reminding to give certain foods at certain meals to loved one Paragraph 0236,if the given new question or statement is detected more than a certain number of times within a certain time frame, then the given new question or statement and the corresponding response is stored in the faster access memory for fast retrieval (Par. 0297),In another example operation, the OCD monitors topics and concepts being discussed and, in real-time, determines if a user provided incorrect information and, if so, interjects the conversation by providing audio or visual output that provides the correct information, par. 0100, interjects to provide feedback (e.g. audio, visual, physical, tactile, etc. feedback) to move on to another topic. Paragraph 0098)
Ogawa's system "interjects to provide feedback" for clarification and "autonomously reminds" users of specific tasks, effectively performing the recited secondary responses.
Ogawa teaches, Claim 4.
The system according to claim 1, the set of primary responses and the set of secondary responses each, respectively, comprising either interactive or automated input, or both, from the caregiver. (Ogawa, See at least, Bot proceeds to ask user: what is the answer to this question? User speaks or types in the answer (Par. 0198); The answers are provided by family members, doctors, friends, and caregivers (Par. 0233); systems, methods and devices are provided that can solicit answers from loved ones, care givers, and health professionals and incorporate these answers into the frequently asked questions that the patients ask (Par. 0357); Smart Device Transceiver installs or flashes the new data science into FPGA/GPU, or the data, or the recommendations, or combinations thereof, to the local smart device data store, in real time (Par. 0242); smart device(s) and smart cloud ecosystem(s) interact with the dementia patient throughout the entire day (Par. 0046).)
Ogawa teaches, Claim 5.
The system according to claim 4, the set of primary responses comprising interactive input from the caregiver. (Ogawa, these questions are then workflow sent to the appropriate family member, friend, doctor, care giver for a response, par. 0198)
Ogawa teaches, Claim 6.
The system according to claim 1, the set of primary responses consisting essentially of automated input from the caregiver, and the set of secondary responses consisting essentially of automated input from the caregiver. (These questions can be autonomously added if NLP machine learning detects a new question that has not been previously asked by the patient. For example, these questions are then workflow sent to the appropriate family member, friend, doctor, care giver for a response." (Paragraph [0198], In an example embodiment, systems, methods and devices are provided that can solicit answers from loved ones, care givers, and health professionals and incorporate these answers into the frequently asked questions... that the patients ask(s)." (Paragraph [0357])
Ogawa teaches, Claim 7.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the trusted voice comprises one or more mannerisms derived from the patient, a family member of the patient, or a friend of the patient; the one or more mannerisms comprising at least one of cadence, intensity, regional dialect, accent, and cultural reference. (Ogawa, See at least, the bot used herein learns the unique voice of the user, which the bot consequently uses to learn behavior that may be specific to the user (Par. 0076); Non-limiting examples of voice data features...include one or more of: tone, frequency (e.g. also called timbre), loudness, rate at which a word or phrase is said (e.g. also called tempo), phonetic pronunciation, lexicon (e.g. choice of words), syntax (e.g. choice of sentence structure), articulation (e.g. clarity of pronunciation), rhythm (e.g. patterns of long and short syllables), melody (e.g. ups and downs in voice), vowel duration, peak vocal sound pressure (e.g. measured in SPL), continuity of phonation, tremor, pitch variability, and loudness variability (Par. 0077); Decompose the voice data into audio voice attributes of the given person (e.g. frequency, amplitude, timbre, vowel duration, peak vocal SPL and continuity of phonation, tremor, pitch variability, loudness variability, tempo, speech rate) (Par. 0262, Block 1403); When a patient asks a question to a son, for example, the smart device responds using a synthesized voice that sound like the patient's son (Par. 0235).)
Ogawa teaches, Claim 8.
The system according to claim 7, wherein the trusted voice is the voice of the caregiver. ( Ogawa, See at least, The intent is that any response in the digital library can be reproduced in the voice of a spouse, family member, friend, care giver, doctor, or health care provider (Par. 0168); A device detects a person saying: Tell me when to go to the doctor's appointment. In response, a conversation is initiated using a synthesized caregiver's familiar voice via a smart device (Par. 0203); A device detects a person saying: Tell me when I see my son/daughter next. In response, a conversation is initiated using a synthesized caregiver's familiar voice via a smart device (Par. 0204).)
Ogawa teaches, Claim 9.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the patient-optimized voice response software application comprises a telephone user interface and a response randomizing function. (The data enablement platform generates mappings of persona data to different contexts (e.g. time period, location, topic, etc.)... It will be appreciated that the bot libraries are used to vary the data and behavior of the synthesized bot. (Paragraphs [0306]-[0307]), "Non-limiting examples of user devices include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet, a desktop computer, a laptop, an e-book, an in-car computer interface, wearable devices, implanted devices, brain-computer interfaces, human-computer interfaces... a robot, a prosthetic device, an ambulatory device, augmented reality devices, and virtual reality devices." (Paragraph [0054]),"These devices that interact with a person with dementia are also herein called a user device, an oral communication device, an edge device, a smart device... The functionalities and form of these devices vary." (Paragraph [0051]))
Ogawa teaches, Claim 10.
The system according to claim 9, wherein the response randomizing function is configured and adapted to provide a different response selected from the set of primary responses to each of two successive prompts selected from the set of primary prompts. ("In this way, if a person with dementia is focused too much on a first topic that is not appropriate or beneficial (e.g. circular and repeated discussion about a first topic), then the OCD interjects at an appropriate time to help the person think about a second topic." (Paragraph [0098]) "Cached data science (ML, STRIPA algos) embedded in these smart devices provides patients with autonomous answers, recommendations and actions based on the patient's dementia state that moment... and can dynamically change these answers, recommendations, and actions using machine learning." (Paragraph [0166],In an example embodiment... after the data science server has detected that the patient has said a phrase or question a certain number of times within a certain time frame (e.g. 4 times within a day, 2 times within an hour, etc.), then the data science server sends a notification (e.g. message, email, text message, phone call, etc.) to another person's user device telling them to take action (e.g. contact the patient)." (Paragraph [0143]))
Ogawa teaches, Claim 63.
The system according to claim 1, wherein the patient-optimized voice response software application is based on a telephony system. (Ogawa, See at least, par. 0046, Non-limiting examples of user devices include a mobile phone, a smart phone and smart devices ex. personal assistant devices, smartphone interact with the dementia patient throughout the entire day and patient experiences a conversation as if he or she is really talking with a person over the phone.)
Note: Claims 11-20, 31-40, 41-50, and 57-58 are rejected using the same rationale applied to claims 1-10 and 63.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0409. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800.
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.
/JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684