DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 30, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 have been amended, no claim(s) have been cancelled, and claim(s) 21-22 have been added. Thus, claims 1-22 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant principally argues that the claims are directed to a specific technological process that provides an improvement in stress-monitoring and regulation systems through real-time adaptive biofeedback control. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the closed-loop cycle is “measure[Wingdings font/0xE0] compute[Wingdings font/0xE0] adjust[Wingdings font/0xE0] re-measure” however the claims as written currently fails to positively recite a re-measurement step. Furthermore, even if the claim limitations were properly positively recited, the examiner does not believe this is a true closed-loop cycle that would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. The “adjustment” step requires “automatically adjusting breathing instructions” that are output to the user. This is not an adjustment to how the computing apparatus functions or processes data, the actual functions of the apparatus are essentially measure[Wingdings font/0xE0] compute[Wingdings font/0xE0] instruct[Wingdings font/0xE0] measure. The claims as written only require adjusting breathing instructions; however, the apparatus can not cause the user to actually change the breathing behavior or to modify the cardiac coherence based on that changed breathing behavior. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced that this is a real-time control system producing a physiological effect.
The applicant further argues that these claims are integrated into a practical application. In regards to point 1, active physiological measurement, the use of the sensors to collect data during the breathing exercise is the use of generic sensors for mere data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity. Point 2, machine actuation, is only automatically adjusting a display in hopes to alter a physical respiratory pattern but it doesn’t actually alter the respiratory pattern as that requires the user of the system to actually enact the instructions that are displayed. This is merely a display that is an additional element that is generic and generally available. Point 3, bounded, tangible process, was addressed above as this is not a true closed-loop process to change cardiac coherence rather a closed-loop for displaying instructions and measuring data. Lastly, the applicant argues an improved technological process that implements synchronization of respiration and hear-rate variability using hardware not present in conventional stress monitors. However, the applicant has not made clear the improvement of the technological process. The use of this hardware appears to be merely additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Therefore, the examiner is not convinced and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 1-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the momentary score" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the momentary score " in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the momentary score” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 12 contain the limitation “…output to the user through a user interface of the apparatus in real time based on the momentary score” however, claims 6 and 15 respectively details “computing a momentary score...and outputting the momentary score.” It is unclear if the momentary score in claims 1 and 12 is the same momentary scores referred to in claims 6 and 15 or if they are different momentary scores.
Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
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 1-22 detail a process and machine (Step 1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-22 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-22 recites at least one step or instruction for processing data, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-22 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A method for estimating a stress level of a human by an apparatus, comprising during a breathing exercise of 3 minutes or less:
executing, by the apparatus, a breathing exercise application by the apparatus, starting a breathing exercise of the breathing exercise application and outputting, during the breathing exercise, breathing instructions to a user of the apparatus; (additional element)
acquiring, by the apparatus, a set of heart activity measurement data samples measured by a heart activity sensor from the user during the breathing exercise; computing, by the apparatus, a set of inter-heartbeat interval samples of the set of heart activity measurement data samples; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
computing, by the apparatus, a dominant frequency of the inter-heartbeat interval samples, and calculating a deviation or variance between said dominant frequency and a reference frequency, and computing a cardiac coherence of the user during the exercise in accordance with said deviation or variance, wherein a high deviation or a high variance is associated with a low cardiac coherence and a low deviation or a low variance is associated with a high cardiac coherence; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
measuring, by the apparatus, a respiratory rate of the user during the breathing exercise; computing, by the apparatus, a score of the breathing exercise on the basis of the respiratory rate and the cardiac coherence, the score indicating a stress level of the user, wherein a higher cardiac coherence is associated with a lower stress level and a lower cardiac coherence is associated with a higher stress level; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
while the breathing exercise is ongoing, automatically adjusting breathing instructions output to the user through a user interface of the apparatus in real time based on the momentary score, such that the adjusted breathing instructions cause the user to change breathing behavior and thereby modify the cardiac coherence measured by the apparatus during the breathing exercise (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Similarly, independent Claim 12 recites:
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; (additional element)
and at least one memory comprising computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform operations during a breathing exercise of 3 minutes or less comprising: (additional element)
executing a breathing exercise application, starting a breathing exercise of the breathing exercise application and outputting, during the breathing exercise, breathing instructions to a user of the apparatus; (additional element)
acquiring a set of heart activity measurement data samples measured by a heart activity sensor from the user during the breathing exercise; (additional element)
computing a set of inter-heartbeat interval samples of the set of heart activity measurement data samples; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
computing a dominant frequency of the inter-heartbeat interval samples, and calculating a deviation or variance between said dominant frequency and a reference frequency, and computing a cardiac coherence of the user during the exercise in accordance with said deviation or variance, wherein a high deviation or a high variance is associated with a low cardiac coherence and a low deviation or a low variance is associated with a high cardiac coherence; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
acquiring a respiratory rate of the user measured during the breathing exercise; (additional element)
computing a score of the breathing exercise on the basis of the respiratory rate and the cardiac coherence, the score indicating a stress level of the user, wherein a higher cardiac coherence is associated with a lower stress level and a lower cardiac coherence is associated with a higher stress level; ((Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
while the breathing exercise is ongoing, automatically adjusting breathing instructions output to the user through a user interface of the apparatus in real time based on the momentary score, such that the adjusted breathing instructions cause the user to change breathing behavior and thereby modify the cardiac coherence measured by the apparatus during the breathing exercise (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Similarly, independent Claim 20 recites:
A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory distribution medium readable by a computer and comprising a computer program code which, when read and executed by the computer of an apparatus, causes the computer to execute a computer process during a breathing exercise of 3 minutes or less comprising:
executing a breathing exercise application, starting a breathing exercise of the breathing exercise application and outputting, during the breathing exercise, breathing instructions to a user of the apparatus; (additional element)
acquiring a set of heart activity measurement data samples measured by a heart activity sensor from the user during the breathing exercise; computing a set of inter-heartbeat interval samples of the set of heart activity measurement data samples; (additional element)
computing a dominant frequency of the inter-heartbeat interval samples, and calculating a deviation or variance between said dominant frequency and a reference frequency, and computing a cardiac coherence of the user during the exercise in accordance with said deviation or variance, wherein a high deviation or a high variance is associated with a low cardiac coherence and a low deviation or a low variance is associated with a high cardiac coherence; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
acquiring a respiratory rate of the user measured during the breathing exercise; (additional element)
computing a score of the breathing exercise on the basis of the respiratory rate and the cardiac coherence, the score indicating a stress level of the user, wherein a higher cardiac coherence is associated with a lower stress level and a lower cardiac coherence is associated with a higher stress level; and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
while the breathing exercise is ongoing, automatically adjusting breathing instructions output to the user through a user interface of the apparatus in real time based on the momentary score, such that the adjusted breathing instructions cause the user to change breathing behavior and thereby modify the cardiac coherence measured by the apparatus during the breathing exercise (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Further, dependent Claims 2-11, 13-19 and 21-22 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-11, 13-19 and 21-22) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 12 and 20), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: millimeter-wave radar and the preprocessing module as implemented by a processor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g. as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-22 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: processor and computer program code, heart activity sensor.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0087]-[0088] describes a processor that is utilized to carry out the software as required by the apparatus. Paragraphs [0038]-[0043] details heart rate sensors that captures heart rate data with such generality that they are generic and commercially available (e.g. PPG, ECG, BCG ).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-22 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the process and machine of Claims 1, 12 and 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 12 and 20 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-22 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough February 12, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796