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
In the reply filed on 26 August 2026 the following changes have been made: claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-39 have been added.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)
or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has
not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier
filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/765,416 and 63/766,962 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For claims 1 and 30 the prior-filed application does not provide support for “generating, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, a summary of the one or more user interactions received before the first clinician user joins the hybrid therapeutic session”, “transition including a plurality of generated statements including the summary and introducing the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session”, “an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session”, and “wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of generating, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, a summary of the one or more user interactions received before the first clinician user joins the hybrid therapeutic session; examiner cannot find disclosure of a transition including a plurality of generated statements including the summary and introducing the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session; examiner cannot find disclosure of an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session; and, examiner cannot find disclosure of wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented. For claims 25 and 35 the prior-filed application does not provide support for “wherein the therapeutic chat interface application updates an informational dialog interface to indicate that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session and presents a therapist video streaming view associated with the first clinician user.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of the therapeutic chat interface application updating an informational dialog interface to indicate that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session and presenting a therapist video streaming view associated with the first clinician user. For claims 28 and 38 the prior-filed application does not provide support for “generating, by a licensure audit tracking module, audit information comprising a timestamp and identifying information associated with the first clinician user for a portion of the hybrid therapeutic session.” Examiner cannot find disclosure of generating, by a licensure audit tracking module, audit information comprising a timestamp and identifying information associated with the first clinician user for a portion of the hybrid therapeutic session. Accordingly, claims 1 and 21-39 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6B are improper as they are blurry or contain fuzzy photographs 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)) and because the text is not legible (37 CFR 1.84(l)), but the concepts could practicably be depicted in a line drawing (37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of 19/694,768. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because recite substantially similar limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The table/chart below exhibits the similarity* between the independent claims where claim 1 of the 19/694,768 is a broader variation of the claims of the current application.
* Similarities highlighted in BOLD
App# 19/694,768
App# 19/229,221
Claim 1:
receiving input to begin a hybrid therapeutic session, wherein a therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent configured to manage the hybrid therapeutic session;
executing, by the artificial intelligence agent, a plurality of workflows applicable to the user based on processing the received user input using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model, the plurality of workflows including at least one evidence-based exercise associated with a plurality of health conditions including at least one mental health condition;
generating one or more responses based on the at least one evidence-based exercise associated with the plurality of health conditions, the one or more responses generated using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent;
presenting the one or more responses to a user through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent;
receiving one or more first user interactions to the one or more responses through the therapeutic chat interface application;
sending a first notification to a first clinician user to join the hybrid therapeutic session, the first clinician user tasked with addressing the at least one mental health condition;
providing a first transition within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent, the transition including a first plurality of generated statements summarizing the one or more first user interactions to introduce the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session; and
generating a summary of the hybrid therapeutic session associated with the user of the therapeutic chat interface application, the summary of the hybrid therapeutic session generated by the artificial intelligence agent.
Claim 1:
receiving user input from a user through a therapeutic chat interface application to begin a hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent chatbot configured to manage the hybrid therapeutic session;
retrieving, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, an evidence-based protocol from a data store applicable to the user based on processing the received user input using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model, the evidence-based protocol including a series of exercises and engagements having a clinical therapeutic effect on the user;
generating one or more responses associated with the evidence-based protocol, the one or more responses generated using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot;
presenting the one or more responses to the user through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; receiving one or more user interactions to the one or more responses through the therapeutic chat interface application;
determining, by an AI hybrid care management server and based on the one or more user interactions, that a first clinician user is to join the hybrid therapeutic session;
selecting a clinician device associated with the first clinician user based on availability data for the first clinician user;
generating, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, a summary of the one or more user interactions received before the first clinician user joins the hybrid therapeutic session;
routing, by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server, the summary to a supervising application executing on the clinician device and communications between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device during the hybrid therapeutic session;
establishing, through a real-time communications module, a communication session between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device; and
providing a transition within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the transition including a plurality of generated statements including the summary and introducing the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session, and wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented
Claim 1:
receiving input to begin a hybrid therapeutic session, wherein a therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent configured to manage the hybrid therapeutic session;
executing, by the artificial intelligence agent, a plurality of workflows applicable to the user based on processing the received user input using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model, the plurality of workflows including at least one evidence-based exercise associated with a plurality of health conditions including at least one mental health condition;
generating one or more responses based on the at least one evidence-based exercise associated with the plurality of health conditions, the one or more responses generated using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent;
presenting the one or more responses to a user through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent;
receiving one or more first user interactions to the one or more responses through the therapeutic chat interface application;
sending a first notification to a first clinician user to join the hybrid therapeutic session, the first clinician user tasked with addressing the at least one mental health condition;
providing a first transition within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent, the transition including a first plurality of generated statements summarizing the one or more first user interactions to introduce the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session; and
generating a summary of the hybrid therapeutic session associated with the user of the therapeutic chat interface application, the summary of the hybrid therapeutic session generated by the artificial intelligence agent.
Claim 30:
one or more processors and a memory operably
coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, in
response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or
more processors to perform operations including: receiving user input from a user through a therapeutic chat interface application to begin a hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent chatbot configured to manage the hybrid therapeutic session;
retrieving, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, an evidence-based protocol from a data store applicable to the user based on processing the received user input using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model, the evidence-based protocol including a series of exercises and engagements having a clinical therapeutic effect on the user;
generating one or more responses associated with the evidence-based protocol, the one or more responses generated using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot;
presenting the one or more responses to the user through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; receiving one or more user interactions to the one or more responses through the therapeutic chat interface application;
determining, by an AI hybrid care management server and based on the one or more user interactions, that a first clinician user is to join the hybrid therapeutic session;
selecting a clinician device associated with the first clinician user based on availability data for the first clinician user;
generating, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, a summary of the one or more user interactions received before the first clinician user joins the hybrid therapeutic session;
routing, by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server, the summary to a supervising application executing on the clinician device and communications between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device during the hybrid therapeutic session;
establishing, through a real-time communications module, a communication session between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device; and
providing a transition within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the transition including a plurality of generated statements including the summary and introducing the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session, and wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented
The subject matter of the 19/694,768 application amounts to claims which
are broader in scope. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by an invention within the scope of the generic claims. Dependent claim 7 is anticipated by claims 28 & 38 of 19/299,221 for reciting licensure audit. The remaining dependent claims recite similar limitations as 19/299,221 such as therapeutic chat interface application, accessing a transcript, and using a generative artificial intelligence model.
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 and 21-39 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 1 and 21-29) and machine (claims 30-39).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
receiving user input from a user through a therapeutic chat interface application to begin a hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent chatbot configured to manage the hybrid therapeutic session;
retrieving, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, an evidence-based protocol from a data store applicable to the user based on processing the received user input using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model, the evidence-based protocol including a series of exercises and engagements having a clinical therapeutic effect on the user;
generating one or more responses associated with the evidence-based protocol, the one or more responses generated using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot;
presenting the one or more responses to the user through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; receiving one or more user interactions to the one or more responses through the therapeutic chat interface application;
determining, by an AI hybrid care management server and based on the one or more user interactions, that a first clinician user is to join the hybrid therapeutic session;
selecting a clinician device associated with the first clinician user based on availability data for the first clinician user;
generating, by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, a summary of the one or more user interactions received before the first clinician user joins the hybrid therapeutic session;
routing, by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server, the summary to a supervising application executing on the clinician device and communications between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device during the hybrid therapeutic session;
establishing, through a real-time communications module, a communication session between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device; and
providing a transition within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the transition including a plurality of generated statements including the summary and introducing the first clinician user to the user within the hybrid therapeutic session, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session, and wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented.
Claim 30 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but for recitation of generic computer components.
These steps for conducting a hybrid therapeutic session, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through organizing the activity around conducting/managing a hybrid therapeutic session. This could be analogized to steps a human therapist or psychological counselor takes in real life when conducting a therapeutic session with a patient. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claim 1, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of through a therapeutic chat interface application; wherein the therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent chatbot; by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model; using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; through the therapeutic chat interface application; by an AI hybrid care management server; by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server; between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device; through a real-time communications module; between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device; within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface; presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented; and, one or more processors and a memory operably coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving user input from a user; retrieving […] an evidence-based protocol from a data store applicable to the user; receiving one or more user interactions to the one or more responses; and, sending a notification to a first clinician user to join the hybrid therapeutic session amounts to mere data gathering and output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving, retrieving, and sending actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as through a therapeutic chat interface application; wherein the therapeutic chat interface application comprises an artificial intelligence agent chatbot; by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; using a machine learning model comprising a natural language understanding model; using a generative artificial intelligence model by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; through the therapeutic chat interface application through the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; through the therapeutic chat interface application; by an AI hybrid care management server; by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server; between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device; through a real-time communications module; between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device; within the therapeutic chat interface application by the artificial intelligence agent chatbot; wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface; presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented; and, and, one or more processors and a memory operably coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that, in response to execution of the instructions by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f)
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving user input from a user; retrieving […] an evidence-based protocol from a data store applicable to the user; receiving one or more user interactions to the one or more responses; and, sending a notification to a first clinician user to join the hybrid therapeutic session; e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 21-39 reciting particular aspects for conducting a hybrid therapeutic session such as
[Claim 21 & 31] wherein the AI hybrid care management server stores session history and the one or more user interactions in a database;
[Claim 22 & 32] wherein the therapeutic chat interface application receives the user input through a first engagement channel, and wherein the AI hybrid care management server determines a contextual state of the user based on a history of prior interactions received through a second engagement channel different from the first engagement channel;
[Claim 23 & 33] wherein the first engagement channel comprises instant messaging chat and the second engagement channel comprises a phone call, and wherein the therapeutic chat interface application accesses a transcript of the phone call in determining the contextual state of the user;
[Claim 24 & 34] wherein the real-time communications module provides at least one of text communication, audio communication, and video communication between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device;
[Claim 25 & 35] wherein the therapeutic chat interface application updates an informational dialog interface to indicate that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session and presents a therapist video streaming view associated with the first clinician user;
[Claim 26 & 36] wherein the supervising application includes an override chat interface engine configured to enable the first clinician user to join a conversation or a call and override chatbot communications in the therapeutic chat interface application;
[Claim 27 & 37] wherein the first clinician user is authenticated by the supervising application before receiving access to the one or more user interactions;
[Claim 28 & 38] generating, by a licensure audit tracking module, audit information comprising a timestamp and identifying information associated with the first clinician user for a portion of the hybrid therapeutic session;
[Claim 29 & 39] wherein the AI hybrid care management server includes a session routing module configured to route information between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot and the first clinician user through the therapeutic chat interface application;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 21-29 and 31-39 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 22 & 32 (through a first engagement channel; the AI hybrid care management server; and, through a second engagement channel different from the first engagement channel); claims 23 & 33 (wherein the first engagement channel comprises instant messaging chat and the second engagement channel comprises a phone call, and wherein the therapeutic chat interface application accesses a transcript of the phone call); claims 24 & 34 (wherein the real-time communications module provides at least one of text communication, audio communication, and video communication between the therapeutic chat interface application and the clinician device); claims 25 & 35 (wherein the therapeutic chat interface application updates an informational dialog interface to indicate that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session and presents a therapist video streaming view associated with the first clinician user); claims 26 & 36 (wherein the supervising application includes an override chat interface engine configured to enable the first clinician user to join a conversation or a call and override chatbot communications in the therapeutic chat interface application); claims 27 & 37 (by the supervising application); claims 28 & 38 (by the supervising application); and, claims 29 & 39 (wherein the AI hybrid care management server includes a session routing module configured to route information between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot and the first clinician user through the therapeutic chat interface application) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as recitation of claims 21 & 31 (wherein the AI hybrid care management server stores session history and the one or more user interactions in a database); and, claims 22 & 32 (wherein the therapeutic chat interface application receives the user input) amounts to mere data gathering and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving and storing actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 22-29 and 32-39 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Dependent claims 22 & 32 recite additional subject matter which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receiving the reference image set amounts; e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Dependent claims 21 & 31 recites additional subject matter which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolize every possible application of an AI system initiating a hybrid therapy session, restricting further innovation in this area without offering a specific, technical improvement to how the computer actually operates. Using AI tools is generally not enough to transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter if the core of the invention is still abstract; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 26 August 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, applicant has submitted replacement sheet for Figure 6B and amended the specification to add the missing reference numbers. However, examiner still cannot read the description in Figure 6B. Therefore, the drawing objection for Figure 6B is maintained and withdrawn for reference character 228.
Regarding the priority, applicant asserts that the priority documents reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the earlier filing date. Applicant explains the disclosures of the priority documents and asserts that verbatim disclosure is not required. At minimum, applicant requests recognition that amended claim 1 and newly presented claims 21-39 are entitled to the benefit of the March 4, 2025 filing date of the '962 provisional. Applicant further submits that amended claim 1 is entitled to the benefit of the February 28, 2025 filing date of the '416 provisional at least with respect to the disclosed hybrid-session, clinician join, and AI-to-clinician transition features.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant and asserts that the priority is being challenged because new matter is present in the currently filed claims. Examiner points out that once a priority claim is challenged, the burden shifts to the applicant to point directly to specific paragraphs, figures, or line numbers to prove that the priority document provides proper disclosure under enablement and written description standards; applicant did not do so an a general explanation is not sufficient. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any of the priority dates of the provisional applications.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea since claim 1 no longer recites merely conducting therapy, organizing a patient-clinician relationship, or managing interactions between people. Instead, amended claim 1 recites a particular computer-implemented communications and routing process that operates across distinct technical components. Applicant states that the recited limitations are not merely a clinician's or therapist's mental activities, nor are they directed to an interpersonal or therapeutic result. A human therapist cannot perform the claimed server-based selection of a remote clinician device, transfer information to a supervising application executing on that remote device, establish the claimed real-time communication session, or cause a therapeutic chat interface application to transition to a clinician-video presentation state. That the claimed operations are directed to management of data, communication sessions, and graphical-interface operation in a distributed computing environment under Step 2A Prong 1. Under Step 2A Prong 2, applicant argues that amended claim I integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. That the claim does not merely collect therapeutic information and display a result. It requires a sequence of technical operations that controls the transition of a live hybrid communications session. Applicant asserts that the claimed configuration improves the operation of the hybrid-care communications platform by maintaining continuity between an AI-led interaction and clinician participation through the same application session. It solves a technical platform problem: coordinating data transfer, clinician-device participation, real-time communications, and graphical-interface state changes across remote components when a live interaction transitions from an AI agent to a human clinician. Applicant states that the disclosure identifies and describes the claimed platform-level operations and further describes the user-interface transition now required by amended claim 1. Accordingly, applicant asserts, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the amended claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and the claimed additional elements are not simply generic computers performing routine data receipt, storage, or output. The claims require a non-conventional combination of server mediated clinician-device selection based on availability, transfer of interaction-summary data to a clinician-side supervising application, establishment of a real-time communication session, and a corresponding clinician-join/video-view update in the user-side therapeutic interface. That the claims further require technical operations that improve the manner in which the hybrid-care platform processes and transfers information when a human clinician joins an AI managed session. The claimed system does not merely automate the work of a therapist. It coordinates remote computing endpoints, modifies an interface state, and establishes a real-time connection after transferring relevant session information to the clinician's supervising application. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea through organizing the activity around conducting/managing a hybrid therapeutic session. The claimed limitations are traditionally administrative and clinical practices that humans have always performed for decades, even the applicant’s specification admits that traditional
methods include engaging the patient manually in a human-to-human interaction ([0075] of specification). The MPEP makes it clear that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The courts have also found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite abstract idea even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely by a human. The limitations identified as abstract in the present application are very outcome-based or result-focused and don’t give much technical detail that goes beyond what a human can do. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). Examiner asserts that the claim 1 still puts no limit on how the computer actually performs the argued limitations (i.e., computer-focused operations) such they cannot be considered an abstract idea. Even if the claims nominally recite computer components that are rooted in technology, there is no recitation of how the computer components are specifically programmed to distinguish from generic computer processes. Claim 1 can reasonably be described as falling into the methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the amendments do not do much to advance prosecution because the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problems of mental health issues, social isolation, and unwanted habits ([0003] of specification) by using computers as a tool to conduct/manage a hybrid therapeutic session rather than a concrete technical improvement. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problems solved by the applicant are not technological problems. There is no technical platform problem disclosed in the specification, applicant made-up this problem. This asserted improvement by the applicant is not an improvement to computer technology and is not considered patent eligible by the USPTO (see MPEP 2106). All the applicant is doing is applying known technology for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020). Even if the claims provide a solution to a technical problem, examiner asserts that applicant is clearly using a standard, off-the-shelf artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence primitive operating in its normal manner:
First, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that claim 1 uses a generative AI model to produce responses based on an evidence-based protocol. If the AI generates a response that contradicts clinical protocols or gives harmful advice to a vulnerable user, it poses an immediate safety risk. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how AI hallucination risk is managed that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the claims improve the operation of computers.
Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that AI summarization models can omit crucial context, misunderstand emotional nuances, or incorrectly summarize a user's distress level. A clinician relying solely on an inaccurate or biased summary could misdiagnose or poorly handle the hand-off. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how summary accuracy and context loss are accounted for that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the claims improve the operation of computers.
Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a session routing module orchestrates real-time communication between three nodes: the chatbot, the user app, and the clinician device. If the network drops or a device disconnects during the hand-off, the session could hang. The user might think they are talking to a human when they are still talking to the AI, or vice versa. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how session state and disconnect vulnerabilities are accounted for that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the claims improve the operation of computers.
Fourth, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having both the AI agent and the human clinician actively remaining in the session can cause synchronization lag, message ordering bugs, or UI freezing if the video stream and the chat protocol compete for bandwidth. The applicant’s specification does not explain/lacks detail on how state management conflicts are handled that is necessary for an improvement to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is not evident from the specification how the claims improve the operation of computers.
The examiner also asserts the following facts which the applicant will not be able to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
It is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence, nor does the specification disclose any new artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence. The alleged improvement of using artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. Examiner further points out that improving efficiency ([0023] & [0135] of specification) is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality as set forth by the courts in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application.
An analysis was performed under Step 2B, with court case citations, which didn’t result in the claim being eligible under USC 101. In comparison to Bascom, examiner points out that Bascom is not like the present application because Bascom claimed a technical improvement in the art i.e., a technology-based solution to filter content on the internet while the present application is not presenting an improvement to computer technology (as indicated above). There is nothing specialized about using off-the-shelf artificial intelligence/generative artificial intelligence techniques on new data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive. There is absolutely no justification to withdraw the USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained
Regarding the USC 103 rejection, while the references of record are understood to be the closest prior art, the scope of the claim(s) has been clarified to describe a particular manner in which: routing, by a session routing module of the AI hybrid care management server, the summary to a supervising application executing on the clinician device and communications between the artificial intelligence agent chatbot, the therapeutic chat interface application, and the clinician device during the hybrid therapeutic session; and, wherein the therapeutic chat interface application presents a therapist video streaming view and an informational dialog interface indicating that the first clinician user has joined the hybrid therapeutic session, and wherein the artificial intelligence agent chatbot remains in the hybrid therapeutic session and presents the plurality of generated statements while the therapist video streaming view is presented. This goes beyond any teachings or suggestions in the art. Therefore, the USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Nelson, J., Kaplan, J., Simerly, G., Nutter, N., Edson-Heussi, A., Woodham, B., & Broman-Fulks, J. (2025). The balance and integration of artificial intelligence within cognitive behavioral therapy interventions. Current Psychology, 44(9), 7847-7857.
This reference is relevant because is discloses integrating artificial intelligence with CBT interventions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
