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 .
Status of Claims
This Nonfinal Office Action is in response to the Application filed 05/20/2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and considered herein.
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 in claims 1, 2, and 4 are: “an answer input unit”; “a video image acquisition unit”; “a biometric reaction detection unit”; “an estimation unit”; “a diagnosis result input unit”; “a misdiagnosis possibility determination unit”; and “a daily conversation processing unit”. These are all considered generic placeholders.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
An information processing system comprising: an answer input unit configured to accept an answer from a patient to a question for differentiating a mental disorder; a video image acquisition unit configured to acquire a video image capturing the patient; a biometric reaction detection unit configured to analyze the video image to detect a change in biometric reaction of the patient; and an estimation unit configured to estimate the mental disorder that the patient suffers from by inputting the accepted answer and the detected change in biometric reaction into a learning model, wherein the learning model is trained on the answer, the change in biometric reaction, and the mental disorder.
Independent claims 6 and 7 recite substantially similar limitations. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting patient answers, video and biometric information, analyzing the information, and making an estimation of a mental disorder based on the analyses.
The limitations of “to accept an answer from a patient to a question for differentiating a mental disorder; to acquire a video image capturing the patient; to analyze the video image to detect a change in biometric reaction of the patient; and to estimate the mental disorder that the patient suffers from by inputting the accepted answer and the detected change in biometric reaction into a model” as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic computer system reciting a processor and memory and executable instructions (claim 7) the answer input unit, video image acquisition unit, biometric reaction detection unit, and (machine) learning model, the claim recites an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. The claim recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity because the limitations include a method that allows users to access patient data, biometrics and video, analyze those data and determine whether a certain mental disorder is present or not based on the analyses. This is a method of managing interactions between people. The nominal recitation of a generic computer system, an estimation unit, video and biometric detection and machine learning models does not take the claims out of the method of organizing human interactions grouping. The additional limitations amount to computer methods for further implementing the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims also recited an abstract idea including mental processes. But for the generic computer system, video image acquisition unit, biometric reaction detection unit, an estimation unit, and machine learning models, nothing in the claims is precluded from being performed in the mind. For example, a physician can collect the patient answers, video and biometric data and analyze them and then manually formulate insights about a mental disorder and appropriate recommendations/treatments. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic computer system, video image acquisition unit, biometric reaction detection unit, an estimation unit, and machine learning models. The computer and machine learning models in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations seem to monopolize the abstract idea of patient analysis and diagnoses and general techniques between a physician and her patient. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computer system, video image acquisition unit, biometric reaction detection unit, an estimation unit, and machine learning models amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computing environment.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea. Claim 2 further describes a diagnosis result input and estimates a match or not and further limits the abstract idea. Claim 3 further describes the estimation unit for calculating mental disorders and further limits the abstract idea. Claim 4 describes the video acquisition unit and further limits the abstract idea. Claim 5 describes a daily conversation processing unit, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the daily conversation processing unit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by U.S. 2016/0022193 A1 to Rau et al., hereinafter “Rau.”
Regarding claim 1, Rau discloses An information processing system comprising: an answer input unit configured to accept an answer from a patient to a question for differentiating a mental disorder (See Rau at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0028], [0147]-[0149] (answer sets of pre-recorded questions, record facial expressions and verbal responses.), [0157]; Figs. 2, 3, 7); a video image acquisition unit configured to acquire a video image capturing the patient (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0028], [0133], [0147]-[0149] (answer sets of pre-recorded questions, record facial expressions and verbal responses.), [0157]; Figs. 2, 3, 7); a biometric reaction detection unit configured to analyze the video image to detect a change in biometric reaction of the patient (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0028], [0133], [0138]-[0139] (the patient’s biometric reactions are analyzed.), [0142]-[0144] (Patient Biometric Recording Systems, “PBRS”; and Real Time Episodes Recording & Analytics Systems, “RERAS”), [0147]-[0149], [0157]; Figs. 2, 3, 7); an estimation unit configured to estimate the mental disorder that the patient suffers from by inputting the accepted answer and the detected change in biometric reaction into a learning model (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0003], [0021] (models) [0142]-[0147] (Dynamic modeling techniques and algorithms to compute large volumes of data), [0158] (machine learning algorithms for processing and training based on biometric information and stimuli) [0160]-[0162] (“During the recording session, the master database records of all prior patient APP measurements information of baseline information, patient other illnesses relevant data, prior real time events output reports are integrated and new information generated 7002 applying the data analytics 7004 on raw data 7006. The output can relate to a master database of known conditions and provide relevant longitudinal information to aid the clinician's diagnosis process 7008 along with a rough estimate for a real time risk analysis based on the patient analysis 7014.” Illnesses include anxieties, depression and other mental disorders.); Figs. 2, 3, 7); wherein the learning model is trained on the answer, the change in biometric reaction, and the mental disorder (See id. at least at Paras. [0003], [0021] (models) [0142]-[0147] (Dynamic modeling techniques and algorithms to compute large volumes of data), [0158] (machine learning algorithms for processing and training based on biometric information and stimuli) [0160]-[0162]; Figs. 2, 3, 7).
Regarding claim 4, Rau discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the video image acquisition unit acquires the video image capturing the patient engaging in daily conversation (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0147]-[0149] (“Physicians can recommend and train patients to speak and record their thoughts, answer sets of pre-recorded questions and record their facial expressions to a RERAS device or to their smartphones, tablets and other available devices. This invention subsystems, variants of sensor data fused devices, and contents are selected by the clinicians for each patient and illness […] Mental health examination and measurement tools are administered by text and speech modes through digitized format with natural or neutral tones and voice, as needed and determined by the clinicians. The patients will answer these questions only through verbal responses. PBRS captures patient verbal responses from physician office examination and psychometric testing sessions using a speech to text recognition software. The content of the speech will be analyzed and matched with similar questions from different office examination visits and testing sessions.”), Figs. 2, 3, 7]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, claims 6 and 7 recite substantially the same limitations as included in independent claim 1. Thus, the claims are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning applied to claim 1, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of U.S. 2025/0054623 A1 to Yellowlees et al., hereinafter “Yellowlees.”
Regarding claim 2, Rau discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rau may not specifically describe but Yellowlees teaches a diagnosis result input unit configured to accept a diagnosis result of the mental disorder of the patient by a medical professional based on the answer (See Yellowlees at least at Paras. [0038], [0042]-[0047] (“The expert reviewer may agree or disagree with the diagnosis, risk stratification, and certainty threshold determined by the analysis system.”) ; Figs. 1-3); and a misdiagnosis possibility determination unit configured to determine whether the estimation result of the mental disorder by the estimation unit matches the diagnosis result or not (See Yellowlees at least at Paras. [0032], [0038], [0042]-[0045] (“The analysis system may calculate a risk stratification of a diagnosis, for example, high, medium, or low for any psychiatric or medical diagnosis. The analysis system may also calculate a confidence interval or level of certainty for the diagnosis. If the level of certainty is above a threshold, the analysis system may relay to the patient the risk stratification for the diagnosis […] If the level of certainty is below a threshold, the analysis system may feed back additional questions or testing […] the video segments showing questions and answers that led to an increase in the certainty threshold of the analytical system's diagnosis.”), [0058]-[0059] (“[T]he analytics server may display various data attributes associated with a patient's diagnosis and/or treatment plan on an electronic platform where a medical expert can review the data and determine whether the diagnosis is acceptable. If the diagnosis and/or treatment plan is not acceptable, the model can be taught either by negative reinforcement of the diagnosis.”), [0073]-[0074] (incorrect diagnoses), [0138]; Claims 18-19; Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Rau to incorporate the teachings of Yellowlees and provide accepting a diagnosis of a patient and ensuring the diagnosis is correct, above a threshold. Yellowlees is directed to an AI modeling multi-linguistic diagnostic and screening of medical disorders. Incorporating the AI modeling multi-linguistic diagnostic and screening of medical disorders as in Yellowlees with the real time biometric recording and monitoring systems for managing mental disorders as in Rau would thereby improve the diagnoses and confidence of estimating certain mental disorders.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of U.S. 2025/0149174 A1 to Ozen Irmak et al., hereinafter “Ozen Irmak.”
Regarding claim 3, Rau discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rau may not specifically describe but Ozen Irmak teaches wherein the estimation unit calculates probabilities that the patient suffers from each of a plurality of mental disorders (See Ozen Irmak at least at Paras. [0082], [0113]-[0118] (“In FIG. 2, for example, output layer 208 includes multiple values that each indicates the probability that the target individual suffers or will suffer (in the future) from a respective behavioral disorder. For example, output 208a can indicate a depression probability, output 208b can indicate an anxiety probability, etc.”); Claims 3-4, Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Rau to incorporate the teachings of Ozen Irmak and provide calculating probabilities for a patient to suffer a mental disorder(s). Ozen Irmak is directed to machine learning models to predict the occurrence of a psychological event. Incorporating the predicting the occurrence of a psychological event as in Ozen Irmak with the real time biometric recording and monitoring systems for managing mental disorders as in Rau would thereby improve diagnosing patients that suffer from mental disorders.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau in view of U.S. 2026/0162821 A1 to Son, hereinafter “Son.”
Regarding claim 5, Rau discloses the limitations of claim 4. Rau may not specifically describe but Son teaches a daily conversation processing unit configured to conduct daily conversation with the patient and generate second speech content to convey to the patient in response to first speech content from the patient; wherein the video image acquisition unit acquires the video image capturing conversation between the patient and the daily conversation processing unit. (See Son at least at Paras. [0584]-[0591] (“[T]he linked device 500 can perform its own control, conversations with users, mental care through conversation, daily life support, and health management advice according to instructions from the control device.”), [00594]-[0595] (“[T]he response rule 231 defines a behavior of the avatar 120 corresponding to behavior patterns such as when a user is not participating in group activities, is restless, or is looking down […] a case where the avatar 120 and a user are having a conversation, if the behavior determination unit 246 determines a behavior including speech, the behavior control unit 250 controls the avatar 120 to take a predetermined action and causes a speaker included in the controlled object to output voice of the avatar.”), [0609]-[0611]; Claims 8-10; Figs. 1-5, 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Rau to incorporate the teachings of Son and provide a conversation unit to make conversation and interact with a patient. Son is directed to a behavior control system and avatar interaction. Incorporating the behavior control system and interactions as in Son with the real time biometric recording and monitoring systems for managing mental disorders as in Rau would thereby improve the conversations and other inputs for determining diagnoses of mental disorders.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. 2024/0041371 A1 to Yoo et al., U.S. 2019/0354879 A1 to van Rensburg, U.S. 2025/0191760 A1 to Howard et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights