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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
- "processing unit" in claims 8-14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant discloses sufficient structure for the processing unit in the specification, where Applicant describes the processing unit as being embodied using “a processor that has computational capabilities, such as a central processing unit (CPU)”. See Applicant’s specification as filed on April 9, 2025, paragraph [0021]. Therefore, based on this disclosure and for examination purposes, the processing unit is interpreted as a generic processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-15 are directed to a method, device, or non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, which are within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine or apparatus, or a manufacture). See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 8, and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 8 is directed to a device, while claim 1 covers the matching method and claim 15 covers the matching non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Specifically, independent claim 8 recites the following limitations:
A device for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, comprising:
a display unit;
an input unit; and
a processing unit electrically connected to said display unit and said input unit, wherein said processing unit is configured to:
make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit;
based on the target behavior problem thus inputted, generate and make said display unit display a questionnaire to be completed via said input unit, wherein the questionnaire includes detailed questions related to the target behavior problem thus inputted;
based on a response to the questionnaire, determine a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client;
based on the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem and logic of a competing behavior pathway model, generate at least one PBS strategy and make said display unit display the at least one PBS strategy for selection via said input unit; and
based on a selected PBS strategy of the at least one PBS strategy, generate a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and make said display unit display the lesson plan.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a method for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, comprising: generating and displaying a questionnaire; based on a response to the questionnaire, determining a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client; generating and displaying at least one PBS strategy for selection; and generating a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and displaying the lesson plan). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claim 8 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 8, and 15 encompass concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a method for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, comprising: generating and displaying a questionnaire; based on a response to the questionnaire, determining a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client; generating and displaying at least one PBS strategy for selection; and generating a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and displaying the lesson plan).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1 and 19 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually: (1) generating and displaying a questionnaire (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually generate questions and write them down on a piece of paper); (2) determining a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually make this determination); generating and displaying at least one PBS strategy for selection (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually generate a PBS strategy and write it down on a piece of paper); and (4) generating a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and displaying the lesson plan (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually generate a lesson plan and write it down on a piece of paper).
Further, Applicant’s claims are similar to claims which have been held to recite an abstract mental process. For example, the Federal Circuit held the a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality amounted to steps that could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (citing Electric Power Group g. Alstom, S.A.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims recite steps for collecting information (i.e., in this case, inputting the responses to the questionnaire); analyzing the data (i.e., in this case, determining the probable function of the target behavior problem); and displaying certain results about the collection and analysis (i.e., in this case, generating and displaying the at least one PBS strategy and the lesson plan), at a high level of generality. Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 3, 4 10, and 11 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements, and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
- For example, claims 3 and 10 describes further mental concepts directed to determining that a reply to a questionnaire question about the reason for engaging in a target behavior problem is input as unsure. This is deemed to be part of the abstract mental process, because making this determination can be performed mentally and/or manually and represents a form of a mental observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. However, Examiner notes that claims 3 and 10 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
- Next, claims 4 and 11 describes further mental concepts directed to: (1) determining the function of the target behavior problem with the highest rating to be the probable function of the target behavior problem of the client; (2) determining the two of the multiple functions of behavior to be the probable functions of the target behavior problem of the client; and (3) recommending that the first behavior evaluation form and the second behavior evaluation form be completed again, and performing a cross-comparison on a new response to the first behavior evaluation form and a new response to the second behavior evaluation form. This is deemed to be part of the abstract mental process, because making these determinations and recommendation can be performed mentally and/or manually and represents a form of a mental observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. However, Examiner notes that claims 4 and 11 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG – Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” See MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)-(h).
In the present case, for independent claim 8, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, comprising:
a display unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
an input unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a processing unit electrically connected to said display unit and said input unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein said processing unit is configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
based on the target behavior problem thus inputted, generate and make said display unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) display a questionnaire to be completed via said input unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the questionnaire includes detailed questions related to the target behavior problem thus inputted;
based on a response to the questionnaire, determine a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client;
based on the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem and logic of a competing behavior pathway model (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), generate at least one PBS strategy and make said display unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) display the at least one PBS strategy for selection via said input unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
based on a selected PBS strategy of the at least one PBS strategy, generate a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and make said display unit (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) display the lesson plan; and
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a software program that is installed and executed on a computer device (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 15).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claims 1, 8, and 15 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using generic a computer device, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and software to perform the abstract mental process of: administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy, comprising: generating and displaying a questionnaire; based on a response to the questionnaire, determining a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client; generating and displaying at least one PBS strategy for selection; and generating a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and displaying the lesson plan), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)-(h). For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
- The following are examples of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- Invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g. see, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV – similarly, the current invention invokes computers (i.e., the device, processing unit, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium) and other machinery to perform the existing process of generating and displaying questions, a positive behavior strategy, and lesson plan.
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g. see, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank – similarly, the current invention merely requires the software program stored on the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, to ultimately perform the abstract mental process of generating and displaying questions, a positive behavior strategy, and lesson plan, as described in claim 1, 8, and 15.
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Examples of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Printing or downloading generated menus, e.g., see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. – similarly, the step directed to: “make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit”, described in claims 1, 8, and 15, is deemed to be necessary data outputting, because this step does not add a meaningful limit to the process of obtaining the information (i.e., displaying the behavior collection page for inputting the target behavior problem represents necessary data outputting, because displaying data is necessary in order to convey this information to a user.).
- The following represent examples that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(h)):
- (1) Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.; (2) Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu; and (3) Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc. - similarly, describing that the abstract idea is using logic of a competing behavior pathway model, as described in claims 1, 8, and 15, merely limits the claims to the fields of artificial intelligence, and does not provide any meaningful limits to the abstract mental process described in the claims.
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
wherein the behavior problem collection page displays a plurality of behavior problems for selection via said input unit, and displays an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and said processing unit is configured to make the target behavior problem thus manually entered serve as one of selected behavior problems, and enable the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels thereof and to serve as the target behavior problems thus inputted (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 2 and 9);
wherein, in a case where said processing unit determines that a reply to a questionnaire question about the reason for engaging in a target behavior problem is inputted as unsure, said processing unit is configured to: make the questionnaire further include a first behavior evaluation form and a second behavior evaluation form to be completed (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and automatically perform a cross-comparison on a response to the first behavior evaluation form and a response to the second behavior evaluation form to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 3 and 10);
wherein said processing unit is configured to perform the cross-comparison by utilizing a decision-tree algorithm to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem, the determination being made based on foundational principles including (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)): a. in a case where the response to the first behavior evaluation form and the response to the second behavior evaluation form indicate a same function of the target behavior problem, giving the function of the target behavior problem a highest rating, and if response rates to questions related to the function of the behavior problem on the first behavior evaluation form and on the second behavior
evaluation form exceed 50%, determining the function of the target behavior problem with the highest rating to be the probable function of the target behavior problem of the client; b. in a case where the response to the first behavior evaluation form and the response to the second behavior evaluation form indicate multiple functions of behavior, and the response rates to questions related to two of the multiple functions of behavior on the first behavior evaluation form and on the second behavior evaluation form exceed 50%, determining the two of the multiple functions of behavior to be the probable functions of the target behavior problem of the client; and c. in a case other than the abovementioned principles a. and b., recommending that the first behavior evaluation form and the second behavior evaluation form be completed again, and performing a cross-comparison on a new response to the first behavior evaluation form and a new response to the second behavior evaluation form (as described in claims 4 and 11);
wherein: said processing unit is configured to generate a strategy generation page that includes the at least one PBS strategy, and make said display unit display the strategy generation page (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); the strategy generation page includes, with respect to each of the at least one PBS strategy, a field that displays contents of the PBS strategy, and an edit button to be selected, the strategy generation page further including a save strategy button to be selected (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to the edit button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited via said input unit the field that displays the contents of the PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to said processing unit determining that the save strategy button is selected, said processing unit is configured to save the contents of the PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), generate a strategy selection page that includes the at least one PBS strategy and a generate plan button, and make said display unit display the strategy selection page (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to one of the at least one PBS strategy on the strategy selection page being selected as the selected PBS strategy, said processing unit is configured to make said display unit display on the strategy selection page the contents of the selected PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and in response to the generate plan button on the strategy selection page being selected, said processing unit is configured to generate the lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 5 and 12);
wherein: the lesson plan includes a curriculum plan, a list of activity steps and activity times corresponding to the activity steps, respectively, a modify button, an undo button, a save button, and a regenerate plan button (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to the modify button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to the undo button being selected, said processing unit is configured to restore to an unmodified version the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times thus edited (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); in response to the save button being selected, said processing unit is configured to save the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory, as evidenced by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and in response to the regenerate plan button being selected, said processing unit is configured to regenerate a lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claims 6 and 13); and
wherein said processing unit is configured to: utilize a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a first prompt, the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)); and utilize the generative Al model based on a second prompt and contents of the selected PBS strategy to generate the lesson plan (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f); and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (as described in claims 7 and 14).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1-15 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-15: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-15 amount to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-15, as recited, the device; display unit; input unit; processing unit; competing behavior pathway model; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a software program; generative artificial intelligence model; and the steps directed to: “make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit”; “wherein the behavior problem collection page displays a plurality of behavior problems for selection via said input unit, and displays an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem”; “said processing unit is configured to make the target behavior problem thus manually entered serve as one of selected behavior problems, and enable the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels thereof and to serve as the target behavior problems thus inputted”; “said processing unit is configured to: make the questionnaire further include a first behavior evaluation form and a second behavior evaluation form to be completed”; “automatically perform a cross-comparison on a response to the first behavior evaluation form and a response to the second behavior evaluation form to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem”; “wherein said processing unit is configured to perform the cross-comparison by utilizing a decision-tree algorithm to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem, the determination being made based on foundational principles including”; “wherein: said processing unit is configured to generate a strategy generation page that includes the at least one PBS strategy, and make said display unit display the strategy generation page”; “the strategy generation page includes, with respect to each of the at least one PBS strategy, a field that displays contents of the PBS strategy, and an edit button to be selected, the strategy generation page further including a save strategy button to be selected”; “in response to the edit button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited via said input unit the field that displays the contents of the PBS strategy”; “in response to said processing unit determining that the save strategy button is selected, said processing unit is configured to save the contents of the PBS strategy”; “generate a strategy selection page that includes the at least one PBS strategy and a generate plan button, and make said display unit display the strategy selection page”; “in response to one of the at least one PBS strategy on the strategy selection page being selected as the selected PBS strategy, said processing unit is configured to make said display unit display on the strategy selection page the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “in response to the generate plan button on the strategy selection page being selected, said processing unit is configured to generate the lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “wherein: the lesson plan includes a curriculum plan, a list of activity steps and activity times corresponding to the activity steps, respectively, a modify button, an undo button, a save button, and a regenerate plan button”; “in response to the modify button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times”; “in response to the undo button being selected, said processing unit is configured to restore to an unmodified version the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times thus edited”; “in response to the save button being selected, said processing unit is configured to save the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan”; “in response to the regenerate plan button being selected, said processing unit is configured to regenerate a lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “wherein said processing unit is configured to: utilize a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a first prompt, the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy”; and “utilize the generative Al model based on a second prompt and contents of the selected PBS strategy to generate the lesson plan”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the device; display unit; input unit; processing unit; competing behavior pathway model; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a software program; generative artificial intelligence model; and the steps directed to: “wherein the behavior problem collection page displays a plurality of behavior problems for selection via said input unit, and displays an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem”; “said processing unit is configured to make the target behavior problem thus manually entered serve as one of selected behavior problems, and enable the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels thereof and to serve as the target behavior problems thus inputted”; “said processing unit is configured to: make the questionnaire further include a first behavior evaluation form and a second behavior evaluation form to be completed”; “automatically perform a cross-comparison on a response to the first behavior evaluation form and a response to the second behavior evaluation form to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem”; “wherein said processing unit is configured to perform the cross-comparison by utilizing a decision-tree algorithm to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem, the determination being made based on foundational principles including”; “wherein: said processing unit is configured to generate a strategy generation page that includes the at least one PBS strategy, and make said display unit display the strategy generation page”; “the strategy generation page includes, with respect to each of the at least one PBS strategy, a field that displays contents of the PBS strategy, and an edit button to be selected, the strategy generation page further including a save strategy button to be selected”; “in response to the edit button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited via said input unit the field that displays the contents of the PBS strategy”; “generate a strategy selection page that includes the at least one PBS strategy and a generate plan button, and make said display unit display the strategy selection page”; “in response to one of the at least one PBS strategy on the strategy selection page being selected as the selected PBS strategy, said processing unit is configured to make said display unit display on the strategy selection page the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “in response to the generate plan button on the strategy selection page being selected, said processing unit is configured to generate the lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “wherein: the lesson plan includes a curriculum plan, a list of activity steps and activity times corresponding to the activity steps, respectively, a modify button, an undo button, a save button, and a regenerate plan button”; “in response to the modify button being selected, said processing unit is configured to allow to be edited the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times”; “in response to the undo button being selected, said processing unit is configured to restore to an unmodified version the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times thus edited”; “in response to the regenerate plan button being selected, said processing unit is configured to regenerate a lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy”; “wherein said processing unit is configured to: utilize a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a first prompt, the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy”; and “utilize the generative Al model based on a second prompt and contents of the selected PBS strategy to generate the lesson plan”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that the device is a computer device, for example, a personal computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, etc. See Applicant’s specification as filed on April 9, 2025, paragraph [0020]. Next, Applicant discloses that the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is a storage unit. See Applicant’s specification as filed on April 9, 2025, paragraph [0021]. Lastly, Applicant discloses that: (1) the display unit as being embodied using, for example, “a flat panel display”; (2) the input unit being embodied using, for example, “a physical keyboard and mouse, or a transparent touch panel disposed on the display unit 11 (flat panel display), which together with the display unit 11 forms a touch display, but the disclosure is not limited thereto”; and (3) the processing unit being embodied using “a processor that has computational capabilities, such as a central processing unit (CPU)”. See Applicant’s specification as filed on April 9, 2025, paragraph [0021]. These descriptions in the specification describe these additional elements as basic computer components and functions, such as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. Therefore, the Examiner submits that these computer components and functions represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- The Examiner submits that these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the limitations directed to: “wherein said processing unit is configured to perform the cross-comparison by utilizing a decision-tree algorithm to determine the probable function of the target behavior problem, the determination being made based on foundational principles including”; “wherein said processing unit is configured to: utilize a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a first prompt, the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy”; and “utilize the generative Al model based on a second prompt and contents of the selected PBS strategy to generate the lesson plan”, amount to limiting the abstract idea to the field of artificial intelligence models (see MPEP § 2106.05(h) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
- Regarding the steps directed to: “make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit”; “in response to said processing unit determining that the save strategy button is selected, said processing unit is configured to save the contents of the PBS strategy”; and “in response to the save button being selected, said processing unit is configured to save the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan” - The following represents an example that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere transmission of various data over a network (i.e., displaying a behavior collection page for input is the equivalent of transmitting data (i.e., the page) over a network).
- Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “in response to said processing unit determining that the save strategy button is selected, said processing unit is configured to save the contents of the PBS strategy”; and “in response to the save button being selected, said processing unit is configured to save the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere storage of data in a memory device.
Therefore, the additional elements described in claims 1-15 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-15 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by:
- Neumann (Pub. No. US 2020/0342352).
Regarding claims 1 and 8,
- Neumann (Pub. No. US 2020/0342352) discloses:
- a method for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy (Neumann, paragraph [0029]; Paragraph [0029] discloses methods for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network.), the method being implemented by a computer device and comprising steps of (as described in claim 1) (Neumann, paragraph [0030]; Paragraph [0030] discloses that the network may be communicated to or from a computer and/or computing device (i.e., the method is implemented by a computer device).):
- a device for administering a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and
generating a positive behavior support (PBS) strategy (Neumann, paragraphs [0029] and [0030]; Paragraph [0029] discloses systems for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network, where paragraph [0030] discloses that the system includes at least a server 104 that may include any computing device.), comprising (as described in claim 8):
- a display unit (as described in claim 8) (Neumann, paragraph [0164]; Paragraph [0164] discloses that the computer system includes a display device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), a plasma display, a light emitting diode (LED) display, and any combinations thereof. NOTE: Claim Interpretation - In accordance with the analysis in the Claim Interpretation Section above, the display unit is interpreted as the equivalent of a flat panel display device or similar display-type device.);
- an input unit (as described in claim 8) (Neumann, paragraph [0162]; Paragraph [0162] discloses that the computer system includes an input device, such as a keyboard, pointing device, joystick, gamepad, audio input device, cursor control device (e.g., a mouse), a touchpad, a touchscreen, and any combinations thereof. NOTE: Claim Interpretation - In accordance with the analysis in the Claim Interpretation Section above, the input unit is interpreted as any generic input device, such as a physical keyboard, mouse, or touch display disposed on a generic display device.); and
- a processing unit electrically connected to said display unit and said
input unit (as described in claim 8) (Neumann, paragraphs [0030] and [0164]; Paragraph [0030] discloses that the system includes microprocessor. Paragraph [0164] discloses that the display device may be utilized in combination with the processor to provide graphical representations of aspects of the present disclosure. NOTE: Claim Interpretation - In accordance with the analysis in the Claim Interpretation Section above, the processing unit is interpreted as a generic processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU).), wherein said processing unit is configured to:
- displaying a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client (as described in claim 1); and make said display unit display a behavior problem collection page for inputting of a target behavior problem of a client via said input unit (as described in claim 8) (Neumann, paragraph [0074] and [0083]; Paragraph [0074] discloses that the server generates at least a request for a behavior modification as a function of a user requested category of behavior change (i.e., display a collection page), and paragraph [0083] discloses that the user may generate at least a request for a behavior modification from user client device 180 (i.e., the page is for inputting a target behavior problem of a client).);
- based on the target behavior problem thus inputted, generating and displaying a questionnaire to be completed (as described in claim 1); and based on the target behavior problem thus inputted, generate and make said display unit display a questionnaire to be completed via said input unit, wherein the questionnaire includes detailed questions related to the target behavior problem thus inputted (as described in claim 8) (Neumann, paragraphs [0058] and [0115]; Paragraph [0058] discloses that the server 104 may present to user a set of assessment questions (i.e., generating and displaying a questionnaire to be completed) designed or intended to evaluate a current state of mind of the user, a current psychological state of the user, a personality trait of the user, or the like (i.e., the questionnaire includes detailed questions related to the target behavior problem). Further, paragraph [0115] discloses that the plan generator module collects one or more elements of contextual information, including a current reason for visiting a medical professional, goals a patient wishes to achieve with a medical visit or session, questions a patient wishes to have answered in a medical visit and/or session, or one or more questions to ask a patient (i.e., these are examples of collecting information related to the target behavior problem, so the generated and displayed questionnaire is interpreted as naturally requiring that it’s based on the target behavior problem thus inputted).);
- based on a response to the questionnaire, determine a probable function of the target behavior problem of the client (as described in claims 1 and 8) (Neumann, paragraphs [0038] and [0058]; Paragraph [0038] discloses that a prognostic label identifies and/or describes a current, incipient, or probable future medical condition; disease; symptoms; current or future health and/or healthy aging; physical and/or somatic condition; and mental condition affecting a person (i.e., determining a probable function of the target behavior problem). Paragraph [0058] discloses that the system provides these labels by receiving at least a biological extraction from the user, where the biological extraction may include user responses to questions on a psychological, behavioral, personality, or cognitive test (i.e., the system receives the user response to the questionnaire in order to generate the prognostic labels, so the determined probable functions of the target behavior problem naturally require that they are based on the user responses to the questionnaire).);
- based on the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and logic of a competing behavior pathway model, generate at least one PBS strategy and make said display unit display the at least one PBS strategy for selection via said input unit (as described in claims 1 and 8) (Neumann, paragraphs [0052], [0058], [0062], and [0115]; Paragraph [0052] discloses that the diagnostic engine identifies a process that tends to improve a physical condition of a user (i.e., generating and displaying at least one positive behavior support [PBS] strategy), including exercise programs including amount, intensity, and/or types of exercise recommended; dietary or nutritional recommendations; one or more physical, psychological, or other therapies; and one or more medications, where paragraphs [0058] and [0115] teach that the data collected includes user responses to medical questionnaires and information related to the target behavior problem (i.e., the generated PBS strategy is naturally based on the use Paragraph [0062] discloses that the prognostic labels are created using a first machine-learning model (i.e., the PBS strategy is based on logic of a competing behavior pathway model).); and
- based on a selected PBS strategy of the at least one PBS strategy, generate a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy and make said display unit display the lesson plan (as described in claims 1 and 8) (Neuman, paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0073] disclose that the diagnostic engine 108 may generate a behavior modification by linking the at least an ameliorative process label through a machine-learning process to a behavior modification (i.e., generating a lesson plan), where paragraph [0073] discloses that the diagnostic engine 108 generates a request for a behavior modification by matching at least an ameliorative process label to at least a request for a behavior modification, for example, where an ameliorative process label such as weight loss may be linked to a behavior modification which may include binge eating disorder and paragraph [0119] describes that a plan to consume a given quantity of almonds and a plan to consume less meat maps to a category of nutritional instruction, while a plan to jog for 30 minutes per day maps to a category of activity (i.e., generating a lesson plan that corresponds to the selected PBS strategy).).
Regarding claim 15,
- Neumann discloses:
- a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a software
program that, when installed and executed by a computer device (Neumann, paragraph [0156]; Paragraph [0156] discloses a computer program product that employs a machine-readable storage medium that does not include transitory forms of signal transmission (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium), which stores and/or encodes a sequence of instructions for execution by a machine (e.g., a computing device) and that causes the machine to perform any one of the methodologies and/or embodiments described herein.), enables the computer device to implement the method as claimed in claim 1 (The mapping of the paragraphs in Neumann and the analysis that are interpreted as anticipating the limitations of claim 1 above are incorporated herein by reference.).
Regarding claims 7 and 14,
- Neumann discloses the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 7 depends on); and claim 8 (which claim 14 depends on), as described above.
- Neumann further discloses a method and device, wherein said processing unit is configured to:
- utilize a generative artificial intelligence (Al) model based on a first prompt, the response to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy (as described in claims 7 and 14) (Neumann, paragraphs [0133] and [0144]; Paragraph [0133] discloses that the system includes an artificial intelligence advisor 1508 that includes a user communication learner 1600 may include a general learner 1604; and general learner 1604 that derive relationships between user inputs and correct outputs using a training set. Paragraph [0144] discloses that the artificial intelligence receives a first training data set including a plurality of first data entries (i.e., utilizing the generative AI model based on a first prompt), each first data entry of the plurality of first data entries including at least an element of physiological state data and at least a correlated first prognostic label (i.e., the first prompt includes the responses to the questionnaire, the probable function of the target behavior problem, and the logic of the competing behavior pathway model to generate the at least one PBS strategy).); and
- utilize the generative Al model based on a second prompt and contents
of the selected PBS strategy to generate the lesson plan (as described in claims 7 and 14) (Neumann, paragraphs [0135] and [0144]; Paragraph [0135] discloses that the electronic behavior coach [that is based on the artificial intelligence advisor] assists the user in achieving certain results such as modifying behaviors to achieve a result such as assisting in addition recovery and/or changing a user's eating habits to lose weight. Paragraph [0144] discloses that the artificial intelligence may receive a second training data set including a plurality of second data entries (i.e., utilizing the generative AI model based on a second prompt and contents of the selected PBS strategy), each second data entry of the plurality of second data entries including at least a second prognostic label at least a correlated ameliorative process label (i.e., generating the lesson plan).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Neumann (Pub. No. US 2020/0342352), in view of:
- Constantine et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0198935)
- Green, Jr. et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0301982).
Regarding claims 2 and 9,
- Neumann discloses the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on); and claim 8 (which claim 9 depends on), as described in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Section above.
- Neumann does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods and systems for generating and displaying medical data, Constantine et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0198935) teaches a method and device, wherein:
- the behavior problem collection page displays a plurality of behavior problems for selection via said input unit, and displays an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem (as described in claims 2 and 9) (Constantine, paragraph [0003]; Paragraph [0003] teaches on the left hand side of the display screen 10, a category selection block 12 is provided to select a patient problem (or problems) to be addressed by manually highlighting the problem(s) from a care design master list of problems (which is shown in the form of a drop-down list in FIG. 1) (i.e., displaying a plurality of problems for selection via said input unit and displaying an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem).); and
- said processing unit is configured to make the target behavior problem thus manually entered serve as one of selected behavior problems (as described in claims 2 and 9) (Constantine, paragraphs [0009]; Paragraph [0009] teaches when a user selects one of the listed problems, the goals associated with the selected problem are listed in a list box (not shown) below the problem box on the screen (i.e., making the target behavior problem the selected behavior problem after the problem is manually entered). Paragraph [0009] teaches that these features are beneficial for displaying the a plan of care for a patient with the problems listed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods and systems for generating and displaying medical data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network taught by Neumann, to incorporate steps and features directed to: (i) displaying a plurality of problems for selection via said input unit and displaying an input field for manual entry of a target behavior problem; and (ii) making the target behavior problem the selected behavior problem after the problem is manually entered, as taught by Constantine, in order to display the a plan of care for a patient with the problems listed. See Constantine, paragraph [0009]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Further, the combination of: Neumann, as modified in view of Constantine, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans, Green, Jr. et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0301982) teaches a method and device, configured to:
- enable the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels thereof and to serve as the target behavior problems thus inputted (as described in claims 2 and 9) (Green, Jr., paragraph [0354]; Paragraph [0354] teaches that when the clinician selects a specific finding 2116 to edit in the edit window 3802, a list of modifiers is presented for further selection by the clinician. Such modifiers can indicate, for example, the severity of the finding (e.g., "severe", "moderate" or "mild") (i.e., enabling the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels and serve as the target behavior problems). Paragraph [0354] teaches that this feature is beneficial for selecting the appropriate severity level for a finding.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method and device for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network taught by Neumann, as modified in view of Constantine, to incorporate a step and feature directed to enabling the selected behavior problems to be dragged and reordered according to severity levels and serve as the target behavior problems, as taught by Green, Jr., in order to select the appropriate severity level for a finding. See Green, Jr., paragraph [0354]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Neumann (Pub. No. US 2020/0342352), in view of:
- Phillips et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0253851).
Regarding claims 5 and 12,
- Neumann discloses the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 5 depends on); and claim 8 (which claim 12 depends on), as described in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Section above.
- Neumann does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans, Phillips et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0253851) teaches a method and device, wherein the step of generating and displaying at least one PBS strategy for selection includes:
- generating a strategy generation page that includes the at least one PBS strategy, the strategy generation page including, with respect to each of the at least one PBS strategy, a field that displays contents of the PBS strategy (Phillips, paragraph [0052]; Paragraph [0052] teaches that each of the treatment plan events 422 are displayed on the interface, where paragraph [0047] teaches that the treatment plan further includes a display of patient goals (i.e., a field that displays contents of the PBS strategy).), and an edit button to be selected (Phillips, paragraphs [0053]; Paragraph [0053] teaches that the displays 400 may provide the ability to select from multiple different courses of treatment, scheduling options, etc. in order to update the evolving treatment (i.e., the PBS strategy is editable, therefore this is interpreted as teaching “an edit button to be selected”).), the strategy generation page further including a save strategy button to be selected (Phillips, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the information presented during step 212 may be displayed on a display 140 to allow the patient to review his or her treatment plan and save portions to his or her electronic medical record (i.e., the strategy generation page further includes a save strategy button to be selected).) (as described in claims 5 and 12);
- in response to the edit button being selected, allowing to be edited the field that displays the contents of the PBS strategy (as described in claims 5 and 12) (Phillips, paragraphs [0053]; Paragraph [0053] teaches that the displays 400 may provide the ability to select from multiple different courses of treatment, scheduling options, etc. can be displayed to the provider on the device (i.e., in response to the edit button being selected, allowing to be edited the field that displays the contents of the PBS strategy).);
- in response to the save strategy button being selected, saving the contents of the PBS strategy and generating a strategy selection page that includes the at least one PBS strategy and a generate plan button (as described in claims 5 and 12) (Phillips, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the information presented during step 212 may be displayed on a display 140 to allow the patient to review his or her treatment plan and save portions to his or her electronic medical record (i.e., in response to the save strategy button being selected, saving the contents of the PBS strategy).);
- in response to one of the at least one PBS strategy on the strategy selection page being selected as the selected PBS strategy, displaying on the strategy selection page the contents of the selected PBS strategy (as described in claims 5 and 12) (Phillips, paragraph [0054]; Paragraph [0054] teaches that the patient can view the evolving treatment plan on display 450, including the goals which are specific to the patient, for example, lab results, measurements, etc. and his or her target health (i.e., viewing the patient goals and target health are interpreted as the equivalent of displaying the PBS strategy, because the patient goals and target health are a way to achieve/comply with the treatment plan in the same way that the PBS strategy is the path for achieving/complying with the lesson plan).); and
- wherein the step of generating and displaying a lesson plan includes: in response to the generate plan button on the strategy selection page being selected, generating the lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy (as described in claims 5 and 12) (Phillips, paragraph [0054]; Paragraph [0054] teaches that the patient can view the evolving treatment plan on display 450 (i.e., generating the lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy). Paragraph [0053] teaches that these features are beneficial for facilitating the presentation of a detailed treatment plan to the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network taught by Neumann, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) displaying contents of the PBS strategy with a editing and saving buttons; (ii) allowing the PBS strategy content to be edited; (iii) allowing the PBS strategy to be saved; (iv) displaying the selected contents of the PBS strategy; and (v) generating a lesson plan based on the selected contents of the PBS strategy, as taught by Phillips, in order to facilitate the presentation of a detailed treatment plan to the patient. See Phillips, paragraph [0053]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Neumann (Pub. No. US 2020/0342352), in view of:
- Riker et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0183121)
- Phillips et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0253851).
Regarding claims 6 and 13,
- Neumann discloses the limitations of: claim 1 (which claim 6 depends on); and claim 8 (which claim 13 depends on), as described in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Section above.
- Neumann does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans, Riker et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0183121) teaches a method and device, wherein the lesson plan includes:
- a curriculum plan, a list of activity steps and activity times corresponding to the activity steps, respectively, a modify button, and an undo button (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Riker, paragraphs [0086] and [0126]; Paragraph [0086] teaches that the user is able to “tweak” the imported plan utilizing an optimization objective function that can be formed by iteratively adjusting at least one constraint (i.e., lesson plan includes a modify button). Paragraph [0086] also teaches that the plan includes first radiation dose distribution and original clinical goals (i.e., the lesson plan includes a curriculum plan, activity steps, and activity times). Paragraph [0126] teaches that the user is presented with a slide control 155 (partial undo slider) (i.e., the lesson plan includes an undo button), wherein the user may slide the handle 157 of the slider 155 to incrementally “back-out” of the proposed modification.);
- and the method further comprises steps of:
- in response to the modify button being selected, allowing to be edited the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Riker, paragraph [0086]; Paragraph [0086] teaches that the plan is converted or imported for real-time editing (i.e., in response to the modify button being selected, allowing the plan, activity steps, and activity times to be edited).); and
- in response to the undo button being selected, restoring to an unmodified version the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times thus edited (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Riker, paragraphs [0029], [0083], [0126], and [0127]; Paragraphs [0126] and [0127] teach that if the user the user slides the slider handle 157 all the way to the left, the algorithm undoes the modification completely which allows the user to unroll the prompted changes to the treatment plan (i.e., in response to the undo button being selecting, restoring the plan to an unmodified version). Paragraph [0083] teaches that this feature is beneficial for dynamically undoing a change, completely or partially in order to quickly select an optimum balance between versions of a treatment plan developed by on different systems. Paragraph [0029] teaches that these features are beneficial providing users the ability to explore the trade-offs of different changes to a treatment plan in order to quickly select an optimum balance.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network taught by Neumann, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) allowing the plan to be edited; and (ii) restoring the plan unmodified version if the user selects an undo button, as taught by Riker, in order to provide users the ability to explore the trade-offs of different changes to a treatment plan which quickly allows them to select an optimum balance. See Riker, paragraph [0029]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Further, the combination of: Neumann, as modified in view of Riker, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans, Phillips et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0253851) teaches a method and device, wherein the lesson plan includes:
- a save button and a regenerate plan button (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Phillips, paragraphs [0041] and [0053]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the patient is able to save portions of the treatment plan (i.e., the plan includes a save button), and paragraph [0053] teaches that the plan involves various steps of selecting different courses of treatment in forming/building the plan (i.e., the plan includes a regenerate button).);
- and the method further comprises steps of:
- in response to the save button being selected, saving the curriculum plan, the list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Phillips, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that the information presented during step 212 may be displayed on a display 140 to allow the patient to review his or her treatment plan and save portions to his or her electronic medical record (i.e., since the patient is able to save any portion of the treatment plan, this disclosure is interpreted as teaching “in response to the save strategy button being selected, saving the curriculum plan, list of activity steps and the corresponding activity times of the lesson plan”).; and
- in response to the regenerate plan button being selected, regenerating a lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy (as described in claims 6 and 13) (Phillips, paragraph [0041]; Paragraph [0041] teaches that device 400 provides the ability to select from multiple different courses of treatment when forming the treatment plan, and the treatment plan formation has various steps (i.e., regenerating a lesson plan), where the provider moves through the steps in order to form/build an evolving treatment plan from a standardized treatment plan (i.e., regenerating a lesson plan based on the contents of the selected PBS strategy). Paragraph [0053] teaches that these features are beneficial for facilitating the presentation of a detailed treatment plan to the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods and systems for generating and displaying treatment plans at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method and device for an artificial intelligence behavior modification support network taught by Neumann, as modified in view of Riker, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) allowing the plan to be saved; and (ii) regenerating a lesson plan based on the selected contents of the PBS strategy, as taught by Phillips, in order to facilitate the presentation of a detailed treatment plan to the patient. See Phillips, paragraph [0053]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered
users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office Action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery.
Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300.
Mailed replies should be addressed to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights