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 .
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.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-19 are directed to a process; and claims 20 is directed to a machine.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 11 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized)1:
…providing a digital communications network (DCN) for a plurality of members of a population to communicate with each other;
transmitting a first communication to an individual member of the plurality of members;
receiving a first response to the first communication;
analyzing the first response to determine a first level of emotional valence of the individual member;
generating a second communication designed to induce reflection in the individual member for a first time to increase the first level of emotional valence;
transmitting the second communication to the individual member;
receiving a second response to the second communication;
analyzing the second response to determine a second level of emotional valence of the individual member; and
generating a third communication designed to induce reflection for a second time in the individual member to increase the first level of emotional valence when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is less than an emotional valence threshold.
These limitations recite an abstract because these limitations encompass a mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). These limitations encompass a mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) because these limitations encompass observing communications, evaluating and judging people’s emotional states based on their communications and opining on how the user should behave (i.e., inducing reflection on their emotional state). That is, these claims essentially recite providing therapeutic or psychological counseling. Claims that encompass observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion fall within the “Mental Process”. Claim 1, 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…providing a digital communications network (DCN) for a plurality of members of a population to communicate with each other;
transmitting a first communication to an individual member of the plurality of members;
receiving a first response to the first communication;
analyzing the first response to determine a first level of emotional valence of the individual member;
generating a second communication designed to induce reflection in the individual member for a first time to increase the first level of emotional valence;
transmitting the second communication to the individual member;
receiving a second response to the second communication;
analyzing the second response to determine a second level of emotional valence of the individual member; and
generating a third communication designed to induce reflection for a second time in the individual member to increase the first level of emotional valence when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is less than an emotional valence threshold.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the DCN and the various steps of transmitting and receiving messages, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass generic computer functions of sending and receiving data (i.e. sending data and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, claim 20 further recites the additional elements of a processor, a data repository storing various information, and a server. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the additional idea into a practical application because the additional elements because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components storing performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2-4, 12 and 13 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because generating the communications based on various situations, as claimed, is a part of providing therapeutic or psychological counseling.
Claims 4 and 13 further recite the additional elements of transmitting a request. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because analyzing communications and communicating questions is a part of providing therapeutic or psychological counseling.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the additional elements of transmitting an incentive. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 8-10, 17-19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims generating communications designed to induce the various claimed reflections is a part of providing therapeutic or psychological counseling.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luan et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0043208, herein referred to as “Luan”.
Regarding claim 1, Luan teaches:
providing a digital communications network (DCN) for a plurality of members of a population to communicate with each other (system is an instant messaging application, an electronic-mail application program, etc., ¶[0042]);
transmitting a first communication by the DCN to an individual member of the plurality of members (generates chat responses, e.g.,¶¶[0064]-[0065], [0072], [0101] and Figs. 4, 8, and 11; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receiving a first response to the first communication from the individual member (receives inputs from users, e.g., ¶¶[0070], [0080], [0102], and Figs. 4, 8 and 11);
analyzing the first response to determine a first level of emotional valence of the individual member (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0074], [0102], [0114] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
generating a second communication by the DCN designed to induce reflection in the individual member for a first time to increase the first level of emotional valence (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0063] noting response are intended to encourage and sympathize with the user; and ¶¶[0101] and [0102] showing examples of responses);
transmitting the second communication to the individual member (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receiving a second response to the second communication from the individual member (receives subsequent input, e.g., ¶¶[0085], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
and analyzing the second response to determine a second level of emotional valence of the individual member (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0087], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 2, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating a third communication by the DCN designed to induce reflection for a second time in the individual member to increase the first level of emotional valence when the second level of emotional valence is less than the first level of emotional valence (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142]; see also ¶[0101] discussing user becoming more angry; ¶[0108] discussing noting emotion changes indicate calming down; and ¶[0139] discussing user becoming angry).
Regarding claim 3, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
generating a third communication by the DCN designed to induce reflection for a second time in the individual member to increase the first level of emotional valence when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is less than an emotional valence threshold (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142]; see also ¶[0102] discussing no change in user emotion; and ¶[0109] discussing change in emotion based on threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
analyzing at least one of: one or more communications in the DCN by the individual member or biometric test results provided to the DCN by the individual member to generate the first communication and the second communication (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142]).
Regarding claim 6, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the first communication and the second communication comprise a first question and a second question, respectively (responses included “what happened?”, ¶¶[0101], [0113] and “really?”, ¶¶[0103], [0115]).
Regarding claim 7, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein transmitting the first communication includes transmitting an incentive with the first communication (responses encourage the user, ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Luan teaches:
providing a digital communications network (DCN) for a plurality of members of a population to communicate with each other (system is an instant messaging application, an electronic-mail application program, etc., ¶[0042]);
transmitting a first communication to an individual member of the plurality of members (generates chat responses, e.g.,¶¶[0064]-[0065], [0072], [0101] and Figs. 4, 8, and 11; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receiving a first response to the first communication (receives inputs from users, e.g., ¶¶[0070], [0080], [0102], and Figs. 4, 8 and 11);
analyzing the first response to determine a first level of emotional valence of the individual member (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0074], [0102], [0114] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
generating a second communication designed to induce reflection in the individual member for a first time to increase the first level of emotional valence (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0063] noting response are intended to encourage and sympathize with the user; and ¶¶[0101] and [0102] showing examples of responses);
transmitting the second communication to the individual member (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receiving a second response to the second communication (receives subsequent input, e.g., ¶¶[0085], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
analyzing the second response to determine a second level of emotional valence of the individual member (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0087], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
and generating a third communication designed to induce reflection for a second time in the individual member to increase the first level of emotional valence when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is less than an emotional valence threshold (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142]; see also ¶[0102] discussing no change in user emotion; and ¶[0109] discussing change in emotion based on threshold).
Regarding claim 12, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
wherein the third communication by the DCN is generated when the second level of emotional valence is less than the first level of emotional valence (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142]; see also ¶[0101] discussing user becoming more angry; ¶[0108] discussing noting emotion changes indicate calming down; and ¶[0139] discussing user becoming angry).
Regarding claim 14, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
analyzing at least one of: one or more communications in the DCN by the individual member or biometric test results provided to the DCN by the individual member to generate the first communication and the second communication (generates subsequent response based on difference between emotion vectors, e.g., ¶¶[0088]-[0089], [0103], [0142])..
Regarding claim 15, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
wherein the first communication and the second communication comprise a first question and a second question, respectively (responses included “what happened?”, ¶¶[0101], [0113] and “really?”, ¶¶[0103], [0115]).
Regarding claim 16, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
wherein transmitting the first communication includes transmitting an incentive with the first communication (responses encourage the user, ¶[0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Luan teaches:
a computer processor; a data repository in communication with the computer processor (processor and memory, e.g., ¶¶[0038], [0042] and Figs. 1 and 2):
and storing a plurality of communications including a first communication and a second communication; a plurality of responses including a first response and a second response (stores user’s communications, ¶[0057]);
and a plurality of levels of emotional valence including a first level of emotional valence and a second level of emotional valence (stores captured user data, ¶[0057]; see also e.g., ¶¶[0059], [0077]-[0078] discussing determining user emotion condition and changes);
a digital communications network (DCN) which, when executed by the computer processor, provides a network for a plurality of members of a population to interact with each other (system is an instant messaging applications, an electronic-mail application program, etc., ¶[0042]);
and a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor (server, e.g., ¶[0049] and Fig. 2):
transmits the first communication from the DCN to an individual member of the plurality of members (generates chat responses, e.g.,¶¶[0064]-[0065], [0072], [0101] and Figs. 4, 8, and 11; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receives the first response to the first communication from the individual member (receives inputs from users, e.g., ¶¶[0070], [0080], [0102], and Figs. 4, 8 and 11);
analyzes the first response to determine the first level of emotional valence of the individual member (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0074], [0102], [0114] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
generates the second communication designed to induce reflection in the individual member for a first time to increase the first level of emotional valence (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0063] noting response are intended to encourage and sympathize with the user; and ¶¶[0101] and [0102] showing examples of responses);
transmits the second communication to the individual member from the DCN (generates response based on emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0102], [0114], [0128]-[0129] and Figs. 8, 11 and 13; see also ¶[0070] discussing displaying responses);
receives a second response to the second communication from the individual member (receives subsequent input, e.g., ¶¶[0085], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11);
and analyzes the second response to determine the second level of the emotional valence (extracts emotion vector, e.g., ¶¶[0087], [0103], [0142] and Figs. 5, 8 and 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4, 8-10, 13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan further in view of Denecke, Kerstin, Sayan Vaaheesan, and Aaganya Arulnathan. "A mental health chatbot for regulating emotions (SERMO)-concept and usability test." IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 9.3 (2020): 1170-1182, herein referred to as “Denecke”.
Regarding claim 4, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
transmitting a request to the individual member in the DCN when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is greater than an emotional valence threshold (responses include “what happened?”, ¶¶[0101], [0113]; see also ¶[0109] discussing change in emotion based on threshold; and ¶[0113] discussing change in user emotion).
However Luan does not teach but Denecke does teach:
a request to the individual member to share their reflection (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 8, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the second communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about an action the individual member took (suggests activities and allows user to enter his experiences and emotions associated with the activity, pg. 1175 Activities and Exercises Section).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 9, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the third communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about a cause of the difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 10, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the third communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about a cause of the second level of emotional valence being less than the first level of emotional valence (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 13, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
transmitting a request to the individual member in the DCN when a difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence is greater than an emotional valence threshold (responses include “what happened?”, ¶¶[0101], [0113]; see also ¶[0109] discussing change in emotion based on threshold; and ¶[0113] discussing change in user emotion).
However Luan does not teach but Denecke does teach:
a request to the individual member to share their reflection (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 17, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the second communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about an action the individual member took (suggests activities and allows user to enter his experiences and emotions associated with the activity, pg. 1175 Activities and Exercises Section).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 18, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the third communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about a cause of the difference between the first level of emotional valence and the second level of emotional valence (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Regarding claim 19, Luan teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and does not teach but Denecke does teach:
wherein the induced reflection in the third communication is designed to induce reflection by the individual member about a cause of the second level of emotional valence being less than the first level of emotional valence (emotional dialogue uses the ABC theory to ask user about situation or event and his thoughts and feelings, Tbl. 1, pg. 1175).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the chatbot of Luan with the reflections of Denecke because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognize user in Luan may benefit from using the ABC method to help deal with negative emotional states.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Galitsky, US Pub. No. 2021/0103703 teaches a similar process of identifying changes in sentiment in conversations
Darcy et al., US Pub. No. 2025/0087334 teaches a similar therapy chatbot
Oh, Kyo-Joong, et al. "A chatbot for psychiatric counseling in mental healthcare service based on emotional dialogue analysis and sentence generation." 2017 18th IEEE international conference on mobile data management (MDM). IEEE, 2017 teaches a similar therapy chatbot
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes claim 11 recites limitations claims 1 and 20 do not but analyzes the claims concurrently here for the sake of brevity because these differences do not significantly alter the eligibility analysis.
Prosecution Insights