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 Claim(s)
Claims 1-26 have been examined.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 11,894,129. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims recite the same features of “compare the care schedule of the senior with the scheduling data of the plurality of caregivers to determine a calendar conflict associated with a first event of the plurality of events and assigned to a first caregiver of the plurality of caregivers” and “generate, via a chatbot, an audio alert to the calendar conflict, wherein the audio alert is in natural language and describes the calendar conflict including identifying the first caregiver assigned to the first event”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 recite(s) a system for training machine learning models outputting data which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 9-16 recite(s) a method for training machine learning models outputting which is within a statutory category (process). Claims 17-20 recite(s) a system for managing medical treatment which is within a statutory category (manufacture)
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (See MPEP 2106), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitation of Independent claims 1, 9, 17 recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the steps of:
. A computer system for training machine learning models outputting data associated with scheduled events for a plurality of users, the computer system comprising at least one memory device and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device and a chatbot, the at least one processor configured to:
train a machine learning model using training data including (i) user data associated with a user, (ii) caregiver data associated with a plurality of caregivers, and (iii) an electronic schedule for the user including a plurality of scheduled events;
receive, via the chatbot and at least one microphone of a first client device, a first audible input defining a first new event associated with the user;
if it is determined that a schedule conflict exists based upon the first new event and at least one conflicting scheduled event included in the electronic schedule, the at least one processor is further configured to:
output, from the trained machine learning model by applying the first new event into the trained machine learning model, assignment data indicating at least one resolution to the schedule conflict, wherein outputting the assignment data includes identifying at least one of (i) one or more replacement caregivers for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event or (ii) one or more replacement times for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event; and
if it is determined that the schedule conflict does not exist, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of sensor data or location data received from one or more computing devices associated with the user, whether the first new event has been completed;
if the determination is that the first new event has been completed, generate an assignment score associated with the first new event; and
if the determination is that the first new event has not been completed, generate an alert indicating that the first new event has yet to be completed.
The above limitations of claim 1 constitutes b) certain method of organizing human activities because registering, storing a care schedule of the senior, comparing the care schedule of the senior by determining the calendar conflict, generating an audio alert to the calendar conflict can be practically performed by human activities.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 9 and claim 17 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claim 1 and claim 9 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claim 9 recites a computer-implemented method, whereas claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further define the at least one abstract idea as set forth below:
Dependent Claims 4-5, 15-16 recite outputting data using speaker through the chatbot.. These steps expand the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Step 2A - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2016, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception 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.”
In the present case, 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”):
Claim 1 recites
. A computer system for training machine learning models outputting data associated with scheduled events for a plurality of users, the computer system comprising at least one memory device and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device and a chatbot, the at least one processor configured to:
train a machine learning model using training data including (i) user data associated with a user, (ii) caregiver data associated with a plurality of caregivers, and (iii) an electronic schedule for the user including a plurality of scheduled events (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) ;
receive, via the chatbot and at least one microphone of a first client device, a first audible input defining a first new event associated with the user (merely invokes use of computer and computer components as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
if it is determined that a schedule conflict exists based upon the first new event and at least one conflicting scheduled event included in the electronic schedule, the at least one processor is further configured to:
output, from the trained machine learning model by applying the first new event into the trained machine learning model, assignment data indicating at least one resolution to the schedule conflict, wherein outputting the assignment data includes identifying at least one of (i) one or more replacement caregivers for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event or (ii) one or more replacement times for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event; and
if it is determined that the schedule conflict does not exist, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of sensor data or location data received from one or more computing devices associated with the user, whether the first new event has been completed (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec).;
if the determination is that the first new event has been completed, generate an assignment score associated with the first new event; and
if the determination is that the first new event has not been completed, generate an alert indicating that the first new event has yet to be completed (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec).
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “train a machine learning model using training data including (i) user data associated with a user, (ii) caregiver data associated with a plurality of caregivers, and (iii) an electronic schedule for the user including a plurality of scheduled events”, this is pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these limitations are instructed to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely invoking use of computer to perform the process, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive, via the chatbot and at least one microphone of a first client device, a first audible input defining a first new event associated with the user”, this post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these additional limitations are instructed to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec).
Further, the use of a processor, a chatbot, a memory, caregiver device, as in claims 1, 9, 17 is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed insufficient to a structure or apparatus that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite the additional elements, using computer, processor, memory …; to receive, to train, to determine. The processor, patient/physician devices, computing device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. generic components). The Specification describes the additional elements, i.e. processor, memory, a chatbot, etc… as in claims 1, 9, 17. However, the specification does not describe any specialized components of the computing environment, but only describes these suitable components (Spec.; Paras 0038-0040, 00710. Furthermore, the use of computing components (i.e. processor, memory, , network, etc…) to ttrain, to determine, to generate, to instruct, , “add nothing when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea 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, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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 a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1, 14 and analogous dependent claim 2-13, 15-26 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a computing system, processor, a medical network, a chatbot does not take the claims out of the mental process grouping or organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations are not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Further, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of a processor in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the functions of register, to store, to compare, to generate, to instruct. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, Independent claim(s) 1, Independent claims 1, 9, 17 limit the use of the injection devices, system...The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Thus, claims 1-20 have been held as patent ineligible.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breazeal et al. (US 20150314454A1 hereinafter Breazeal) in view of Guo et al. (US20180082184A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US20190122760A1 hereinafter Wang)
With respect to claim 1, Breazeal teaches a computer system for training machine learning models outputting data associated with scheduled events for a plurality of users, the computer system comprising at least one memory device and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory device and a chatbot, the at least one processor configured to:
train a machine learning model using training data including (i) user data associated with a user, (ii) caregiver data associated with a plurality of caregivers, and (iii) an electronic schedule for the user including a plurality of scheduled events (‘454; Para 0124: The PCD robots may collect information that can be used to train machine learning algorithms. Some amount of machine learning may occur on the robot itself, but in the cloud, data may be aggregated from many sources to train classifiers. The cloud-based servers may allow for ground truth to be determined by sending some amount of data to human coders to disambiguate content with low probability of being heard, seen or understood correctly. Once new classifiers are created they may be sent out through the Update system discussed above. Machine learning and training of classifiers/predictors may span both supervised, unsupervised or reinforcement-learning methods and the more complex human coding of ground truth. Training signals may include knowledge that the PCD robot has accomplished a task or explicit feedback generated by the user such as voice, touch prompt, a smiling face, gesture, etc. Accumulating images from the cameras that may include a face and audio data may be used to improve the quality of those respective systems in the cloud; Para 0170; Para 0187: PCD 100 may replay the story according to the scheduling preferences set by the teller, at step 804. The listener will be given the option to hear the story at the scheduled time, and can accept, decline, or reschedule the story.);
Guo teaches
receive, via the chatbot and at least one microphone of a first client device, a first audible input defining a first new event associated with the user (‘184; Abstract: he context-aware chatbot method comprises receiving a user's voice; converting the user's voice to a question to be answered; determining a question type of the question to be answered; generating at least one answer to the question based on a context-aware neural conversation model; validating the answer generated by the context-aware neural conversation model; and delivering the answer validated to the user.; Para 0042: in FIG. 4, at the beginning, user's voice is received (S402). The user's voice may be in real time or may be recorded, and the user's voice may be received by a microphone and then converted into a digital format or into a data file. The user's voice may also be received in data of digital format or in the form of data file. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date iling date of claimed invention to modify the system of Breazeal with the technique of context-aware chatbot as taught by Guo and the motivation is to include machine learning model in chatbot conversation between caregiver and the user.
Wang teaches
if it is determined that a schedule conflict exists based upon the first new event and at least one conflicting scheduled event included in the electronic schedule, the at least one processor is further configured to:
output, from the trained machine learning model by applying the first new event into the trained machine learning model, assignment data indicating at least one resolution to the schedule conflict, wherein outputting the assignment data includes identifying at least one of (i) one or more replacement caregivers for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event or (ii) one or more replacement times for the first new event or the at least one conflicting scheduled event (‘760; Para 0022: To facilitate a micro-scheduling system between caregivers and replacement caregivers to substantially reduce the workload of a traditional dispatcher, coordinator, and/or coordination system; Para 0042: FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary methodology for prescheduling and rescheduling a plurality of service requests using replacement caregiver ); and
if it is determined that the schedule conflict does not exist, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of sensor data or location data received from one or more computing devices associated with the user, whether the first new event has been completed (‘760; Para 0142: a set of indicators may be provided to convey information about designated visit locations and drop-off locations, and locations from the first and second leg of a service request, as prescheduled by the patient. Such indicators may show service request related location information to a coordinator or a caregiver on a touch screen electronic map display. The touch screen display enables a patient to make selections regarding a service request, and can be equipped with sensors within the touch screen display that are clickable or otherwise react to touch. The signals that are received by the sensors within the touch screen display are what the processor may receive as input, and those signals may be turned into outputs which lead the system to carry out the selection a patient or a caregiver has made);
if the determination is that the first new event has been completed, generate an assignment score associated with the first new event (‘760; Para 0117: Various algorithms and weighted factors may be utilized in making caregiver assignments); and
if the determination is that the first new event has not been completed, generate an alert indicating that the first new event has yet to be completed (‘760; Para 0221).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the system of Breazeal/Guo with the technique of customized scheduling of home care service as taught by Wang and the motivation is to include machine learning model in chatbot conversation between caregiver and the user
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to re-train the trained machine learning model by inputting the assignment score (‘454; Para 0038).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected as the same reason with claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of scheduled events are assigned to at least one caregiver of the plurality of caregivers (‘454; Para 0022, 0222).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected as the same reason with claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output the assignment data based upon the electronic schedule, scheduling data of the plurality of caregivers, and the first new event (‘454; Para 0039: provides a personal service including, but not limited to, providing the user with useful information, assisting in scheduling, reminding, providing particular service).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected as the same reason with claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that the schedule conflict exists, the at least one processor is further configured to generate and audibly present, via the chatbot and at least one speaker of the first client device, a first audible output advising that the schedule conflict existed and providing the at least one resolution (‘760; Para 0042, 0117, 0142).
Claim 13 is rejected as the same reason with claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that the schedule conflict does not exist, the at least one processor is further configured to generate and audibly present, via the chatbot and at least one speaker of the first client device, a second audible output requesting an audible response from the user confirming that the user desires to add the first new event to the electronic schedule (‘454; Para 0143).
Claim 14 is rejected as the same reason with claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that the first new event has been completed, the at least one processor is further configured to (i) automatically check a box indicating that the first new event has been completed, and (ii) cause display of the box on the first client device (‘454; Para 0378).
Claim 15 is rejected as the same reason with claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, the combined art teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein if it is determined that the first new event has not been completed, the at least one processor is further configured to cause display of the alert on at least one of the first client device or a second client device associated with one of the plurality of caregivers (‘454; Para 0435).
Claim 16 is rejected as the same reason with claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights