Patent Application 18212435 - HUMAN DIGITAL TWINNING METHOD AND SYSTEM OF - Rejection

Patent Application 18212435 - HUMAN DIGITAL TWINNING METHOD AND SYSTEM OF

Title: HUMAN DIGITAL TWINNING METHOD AND SYSTEM OF EMOTIONAL REGULATION FOR EMOTIONAL LABOR IN WORKPLACES USING MULTI-MODAL SENSOR DATA

Application Information

• Invention Title: HUMAN DIGITAL TWINNING METHOD AND SYSTEM OF EMOTIONAL REGULATION FOR EMOTIONAL LABOR IN WORKPLACES USING MULTI-MODAL SENSOR DATA
• Application Number: 18212435
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-21T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-06-21T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 705
• National Sub-Class: 007150
• Examiner Employee Number: 100113
• Art Unit: 3625
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/212,435 filed on 06/21/2023.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 

Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
From Claim 10: “a data collector configured to…”, and “an emotional regulation determiner configured to…”.
When looking to the specification, the hardware structure associated with the “a data collector configured to…” is being interpreted as “software implemented through an application of an electronic device”, and “an emotional regulation determiner configured to…” is being interpreted as “a single device having data storage and processing capability, such as a large capacity server”. This is to be the structure required for the claims, or equivalents thereof, and the interpretation applies to independent claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA  the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the claim language of “granting a right to access the multimodal data collected about to with concerning the emotional worker…”.  The language “about to with concerning” lacks clarity. The words in the phrase are not used in a grammatically coherent way, and include grammatical errors via the string of four prepositions, which causes an indefinite claim scope. Also, neither claim 6 nor its parent claim(s) describe the multimodal data as being collected with respect to an emotional worker. Hence, this limitation also lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7, as a dependent claim from claim 6, is also rejected based on their dependency from an indefinite parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “updating the emotional labor model through the feedback of the emotional worker.”  However, the term “the feedback” lacks antecedent basis.  It’s not clear whether “the feedback” is intended to refer to the quantified regulation information introduced into claim 8, or whether “the feedback” is intended as a new/distinct limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (i.e., Process), claim 9 is directed to a computer-readable recording medium (i.e., Item of Manufacture), and claim 10 is directed to a data collection system (i.e., Machine), for implementing a human digital twin of an emotional worker. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recite limitations that fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping that set forth concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent Claim 1 recites a data collection method for implementing a human digital twin performed by a data collection system with the following limitations: “collecting multimodal data”, and “using the collected multimodal data to determine emotional regulation information that results from a job of an emotional worker”. Independent Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions with the same limitations as the ones recited in Claim 1. Independent Claim 10 recites a data collection system with the following limitations: “to collect multimodal data”, “determine emotional regulation information that results from a job of an emotional worker”, and “using the collected multimodal data”.
As drafted, under the BRI of the claimed invention, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the abstract ideas based on “Mental Processes”, but for the recitation of the following additional elements (to be considered in Step 2A, Prong 2 below): heterogeneous data collection tools, emotional labor model, and processor, data collector, and emotional regulation determiner.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 further narrow the abstract idea and introduce further additional elements for consideration, namely: digital twin classification model, data collection period, aperiodic synchronization data collection tool, and periodic synchronization data collection tool. Dependent claims 4, and 6-8 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce additional elements for consideration. 
Step 2A, Prong 2: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, specifically, heterogeneous data collection tools, emotional labor model, and processor, data collector, and emotional regulation determiner from the independent claims, and digital twin classification model, data collection period, aperiodic synchronization data collection tool, and periodic synchronization data collection tool from the dependent claims, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., collecting, storing, or preprocessing data/information) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (e.g., processor, memory, computer-readable medium) after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, mental processes, or mathematical concepts) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, "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. In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment).  See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the collecting, storing, or preprocessing data/information activities are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).  In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they only use a computer, computer components, as tools. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 1-10 do not include anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, nor do they provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer features, such as a processor, memory, or computer-readable medium are fundamental parts of operating systems and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation of the invention using elements of a general purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Federal Circuit 2015). 
For example, Applicant’s specification, such as in [Page 14], where the specification or drawings do not provide any particular structure/function associated with the processor, other than the well-understood actions for “run an operating system (OS) and one or more software applications that run on the OS. The processing device also may access, store, manipulate, process, and create data in response to the execution of the software”. Or in [Page 6], where the specification or drawings do not provide any particular structure/function associated with the heterogeneous data collection tools, other than the well-understood actions to “collect multimodal data”. Or in [Page 9], where the specification or drawings do not provide any particular structure/function associated with the emotional regulation determiner, other than the well-understood actions to “determine emotional regulation information”. Similarly, the specification and drawings do not provide any particular structure of function—other than well understood actions—associated with the following additional elements from the independent claims: emotional labor model, data collector.
Therefore, the functions of the claims are deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by Applicant’s own disclosure and by prior art. Therefore, as shown Section 2106.05(d), the 2B features of the invention are “routine and conventional.”, and/or do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements adds to something significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and generic equipment utilization. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 introduce the additional elements digital twin classification model, data collection period, aperiodic synchronization data collection tool, and periodic synchronization data collection tool. Regarding the additional elements introduced in the dependent claims, the specification or drawings do not provide any particular structure/function associated with any of them, other than the well-understood actions to: organize emotional workers, collect information. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.

Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner (US 20200285788 A1), in view of Graham et al. (US 10972607 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brebner teaches a method for implementing a system with the following limitations (similarly recited – and accordingly rejected for largely the same reasons – in independent claims 9 – a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions – and 10 – a system.):
a digital twin: Fig. 39 depicts an example system for creating, enhancing, and utilizing digital twins.
collecting multimodal data through heterogeneous data collection tools: Paragraph [0503] teaches: Data sources may include any suitable devices or systems that capture and/or store data. Data sources may include websites, news articles, publically available databases (e.g., municipality databases, product databases, building permit databases, and the like), maps, video camera feeds, audio feeds, user devices, data collection devices, IoT devices and sensors, LIDAR devices, radar devices, and the like.
using the collected multimodal data to determine emotional regulation information: Paragraph [0374} teaches: Object classes and methods may allow a developer to specify conversational interfaces and natural language endpoints. Conversational interfaces and natural language endpoints may be used as inputs to create an emotionally responsive avatar for integration into a system that uses the avatar.
However, Brebner does not explicitly teaches the following limitation, further taught by Graham:
that results from a job of an emotional worker through an emotional labor model: [Page 34, Column 5, Lines 21-26] As used herein, the term “service representative” (or simply, “representative”) refers to any individual operating in a capacity to represent a service provider in interactions with a customer or user. The representative could be, for example, an employee at a call center. [Page 35, Column 7, Lines 13-20] An intelligent voice assistant may make use of any techniques in the field of machine learning or artificial intelligence for facilitating verbal communication with a user. In some embodiments, an intelligent voice assistant could include software making use of natural language processing to process incoming sounds (such as words), interpret the input, and produce audible responses (such as words).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brebner to incorporate the teachings of Graham to include the limitations listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to analyze a user's words or vocal patterns for different sentiments (Graham; [Page 33, Column 4, Lines 58-59]). By incorporating the teachings of Graham, one would’ve been able to determine emotional regulation of an emotional worker.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 1.
However, Brebner does not explicitly teaches the following limitation, further taught by Graham:
wherein the collecting comprises classifying emotional workers according to a pre-defined digital twin classification model from the collected multimodal data: [Page 34, Column 5, Lines 19-21] To facilitate interactions with customers, members or general users of its services, service provider 100 may include at least one service representative 110. (Examiner’s Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the “at least one service representative 110” as potentially including different kind of services, like in [Page 34, Column 5, Lines 27-36], where Graham discloses services provided by a bank that include different types of “representatives” from the bank, like pay bill, obtain account balance, transfer money, and technical support. All of these services, are presumably provided by different departments within a bank, hence requiring job classifications.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brebner to incorporate the teachings of Graham to include the limitations listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to help with any other suitable needs a user (or customer) might have. (Graham; [Page 34, Column 5, Lines 40-41]). By incorporating the teachings of Graham, one would’ve been able to offer digital twin services provided by different types of emotional workers.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 1.
Brebner further teaches:
wherein the collecting comprises classifying necessary data from the collected multimodal data according to specifications that include a type of multimodal data or a data collection period defined in a digital twin classification model of the emotional worker: [0504] It is noted that the data ingestion module 1202 can collect data at any suitable frequency (e.g., continuously, according to a schedule, randomly, when a data source is updated, and the like). The data can be partially complete and/or have errors in it. Thus, in embodiments, the data ingestion module 1202 (and other modules) execute one or more algorithms to clean up and manage the ingested data. In this way, data sets can be added over time and the quality, resolution and/or frequency of the updates can be improved over time.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 3.
Brebner further teaches:
wherein the collecting comprises performing preprocessing for inputting the classified necessary data to the emotional labor model: [0642] teaches: For each captured image, the hub device 1810 may preprocess the captured image.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 1.
Brebner further teaches:
wherein the heterogeneous data collection tools include an aperiodic synchronization data collection tool or a periodic synchronization data collection tool, the aperiodic synchronization data collection tool aperiodically collects personal information or self-reported information input from the emotional worker, and 17 the periodic synchronization data collection tool periodically collects biometric data, sensor data, voice data, and environmental information: [0065] teaches: In some embodiments, the real-time data source is a set of Internet of Things sensors. [0168] teaches: With respect to ergonomic factors, each type of input sensor (including virtual inputs such as voice) that a user (e.g., developer) may choose to enable may have different trade-offs and limitations with the human body and the environment where the interaction occurs in.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 1.
Brebner further teaches:
performing user authentication of the emotional worker in response to an access request for collecting the multimodal data: [0399] In embodiments, a server kit 200 may issue and revoke tokens for client application instances and maintain analytics relating to a client application via application usage logs and transaction logs. In these embodiments, the server kit 200 may maintain analytics pertaining to a client application by monitoring various aspects of a client application, such as authentication requests, resource requests, telemetry behavior, and the like.
granting a right to access the multimodal data collected about to with concerning the emotional worker through the performed user authentication: [0413] teaches: a workflow may define a manner by which a server instance adds a new user, including obtaining and verifying user info (e.g., email address, password), assigning authentication data to the user, assigning a role to the user, and/or assigning a set of rights (or permissions) to the user. [0440] teaches: determining whether to allow the nested resource call can include determining whether the user associated with the client application instance has been granted adequate permissions to make the resource call based on the rights 276 of the user.
storing the multimodal data to which the right to access is assigned: [0419] In embodiments, the GUI may allow the user to configure a user data store associated with the client application, including defining the types of rights users may be granted, the different roles that users may be assigned, and the type of user metadata, including analytical data that may be collected with respect to a user.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 6.
Brebner further teaches:
storing self-reported information and personal information that is input from the emotional worker: [0392] teaches: a configuration may include multiple aggregate options to acquire user data. [0437] teaches: the user data store 274 stores data relating to users of the client application, including rights 276 of a user, roles 278 of a user. (Examiner’s Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable interpret “user data” to include certain data provided – or self-reported – by the user, such as name, username, hours worked, etc.).
and the emotional regulation information that results from the job of the emotional worker determined through the emotional labor model: Fig. 22A Step 1402: Ingest from one or more collection devices a plurality of signal samples relating to an environment to be modeled. [0437] teaches: user metadata of a user may indicate an amount of times the user has requested various resources (e.g., how many API calls have been issued by a client associated with the user), how often the user logs in, and the like.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Brebner and Graham teaches: 
The data collection method of claim 1.
Brebner further teaches:
updating the emotional labor model through the feedback of the emotional worker on the quantified emotional regulation information: [0065] teaches: the system further includes a server kit executed by a second set of processors that cause the server kit to: receive real-time data from one or more real-time data sources, wherein the real-time data source corresponds to the environment represented by the digital twin; and provide an instance of the application with the real-time data, wherein the instance of the application receives the real-time data and updates an instance of the digital twin with the real-time data.
However, Brebner does not explicitly teaches the following limitation, further taught by Graham:
wherein the determining comprises: quantifying the emotional regulation information of the emotional worker through the emotional labor model using heterogeneous multimodal data: [Page 42, Column 22, Lines 49-58] teaches: An intelligent voice assistant could be configured to detect user sentiment. As used herein, the term “user sentiment” refers to the user's mood or affect. User sentiment can be determined by sentiment analysis, which attempts to classify a segment of text or spoken words by their polarity (that is, positive or negative) and or by a wider range of emotional categories such as “angry”, “sad”, and “happy”. The embodiments may use any known methods for performing sentiment analysis on text and/or spoken language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brebner to incorporate the teachings of Graham to include the limitations listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to enable natural language processing, text analysis, computational linguistics and biometrics (Graham; [Page 42, Column 22, Lines 58-60]). By incorporating the teachings of Graham, one would’ve been able to analyze data in order to better understand emotional workers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's    disclosure:
Shah et al. (Document ID: US 20190354874 A1 | Published Date: 11/21/2019), which a platform for autonomous and goal-driven digital assistants.
Goodman (Document ID: US 20200175983 A1 | Published Date: 06/04/2020), which discloses an automated assistant action for inclusion in an existing automated assistant routine of a user.
Van Den Dungen et al. (Document ID: WO 2021204641 A1 | Published Date: 10/14/2021), which discloses a system for managing a call includes a virtual caregiver that assists callers of a monitoring service.
G. V. Patil and V. Dhamdhere, "Research and Analysis on Voice Based System with Machine Learning," 2022 10th International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology - Signal and Information Processing (ICETET-SIP-22), Nagpur, India, 2022, which discloses Chatbots in banking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.


/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625

/TIMOTHY PADOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625