DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 & 10-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/12/2026.
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 1-8 & 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-8 & 10-11 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 12-17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claims 18-21 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-8 & 10-21 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A monitoring and intervention system, comprising:
one or more network interfaces configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices over communication network;
a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes; and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, the instructions, when executed, are operable to:
receive direct interaction data from at least one client device, the direct interaction data corresponding to an active use of the client device by a user;
determine at least a portion of the direct interaction data corresponds to stress metric associated with device usage for the at least one client device;
generate a stress value for the stress metric based on the direct interaction data, the stress value indicating stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user;
categorize a plurality of health interventions based on a degree of intervention, the plurality of health interventions including an intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time;
assign a stress threshold to each of the plurality of health interventions;
determine the stress value exceeds a stress threshold assigned to the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time;
select the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time based on the stress value exceed the stress threshold; and
restrict, by the processor, user access to the at least one client device for the predetermined amount of time to mitigate the stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving interaction data, determining an intervention metric and stress value, determining the stress value against a threshold, selecting an intervention and executing the intervention by restricting access are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (such as monitoring users’ behavior and addressing wellness by using interventions to address health problems). Therefore, these limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 210.04(a).
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 12 & 18 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17, & 19-21 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2, 13, 17 recites determining a baseline value, Claims 3-4, 14-15, 20 recites executing interventions based on a stress value, Claim 6-7 recites selecting interventions, Claim 8, 17 recites receiving interaction data from multiple devices, Claim 10 recites the type of interaction data, Claim 11 recites the type of intervention; Claim 21 recites ceasing the intervention. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 12 & 18, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A monitoring and intervention system, comprising:
one or more network interfaces configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices over communication network;
a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes; and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, the instructions, when executed, are operable to:
receive direct interaction data from at least one client device, the direct interaction data corresponding to an active use of the client device by a user;
determine at least a portion of the direct interaction data corresponds to stress metric associated with device usage for the at least one client device;
generate a stress value for the stress metric based on the direct interaction data, the stress value indicating stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user;
categorize a plurality of health interventions based on a degree of intervention, the plurality of health interventions including an intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time;
assign a stress threshold to each of the plurality of health interventions;
determine the stress value exceeds a stress threshold assigned to the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time;
select the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time based on the stress value exceed the stress threshold; and
restrict, by the processor, user access to the at least one client device for the predetermined amount of time to mitigate the stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the network interfaces, client devices, processor, and memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claim 12 & 18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 12 & 18 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 5: These claims recite modifying the function of a client device and thus do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the network interfaces, client devices, processor, and memory, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-8 & 10-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-18, & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karimli (US20210128062) in view of Moenning (US20210378514) and Subramanian (US20190095635).
As per claim 1, Karimli teaches a monitoring and intervention system, comprising:
one or more network interfaces configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices over communication network (para. 24: communication network connected to various devices);
a processor coupled to the network interfaces and adapted to execute one or more processes (para. 17-18: user device); and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, the instructions, when executed, are operable to:
receive interaction data from at least one client device, the interaction data corresponding to a use of the client device by a user (para. 20-21: remote device collects usage and health data based on user interacting with device);
determine at least a portion of the interaction data corresponds to stress metric associated with device usage for the at least one client device (para. 20-21: measurement data can include various types of collected data including device usage);
generate a stress value for the stress metric based on the interaction data, the stress value indicating stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user (para. 89: system can generate stress value for a specific interaction metric based on gathered device data);
categorize a plurality of health interventions based on a degree of intervention, the plurality of health interventions including an intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time (para. 34, 47: system generates ranked list of interventions including restriction of device usage including restricting screen time or restricting calls for a specific period of time).
Karimli does not expressly teach receive direct interaction data from at least one client device, the direct interaction data corresponding to an active use of the client device by a user.
Moenning, however, teaches to a smartphone based mental health and addiction assessment where direct usage data is captured from a user’s mobile device (para. 31, 41). Moenning also teaches to determining whether a relapse or recovery event is occurring based on the communication and present attributes, and upon such a determination, transmitting content to the user responsive to the event (para. 21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Moenning with Karimli based on the motivation of transmitting content to the user for providing reassurance, validation, and the like, to reinforce recovery behavior or mitigate behavior indicative of a potential relapse (Moenning – para. 13).
Karimli and Moenning do not expressly teach
assign a stress threshold to each of the plurality of health interventions;
determine the stress value exceeds a stress threshold assigned to the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time;
select the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device for a predetermined amount of time based on the stress value exceed the stress threshold; and
restrict, by the processor, user access to the at least one client device for the predetermined amount of time to mitigate the stress caused by the active use of the at least one client device by the user.
Subramanian, however, teaches to managing system access to a user where user data is collected by a user’s computing device (para. 20). Subramanian also teaches to assigning thresholds to different interventions (para. 34). Subramanian further teaches to restricting a user’s access to a device based on a user’s stress level reaching a predefined threshold level and enabling access when the stress level comes down below the threshold (para. 34-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Subramanian with Karimli and Moenning based on the motivation of managing system access to a user based on a stress level of the user that intelligently provide system access to the employees based on their health condition (Subramanian – para. 2).
As per claim 3, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli does not expressly teach wherein the instructions are further operable to:
provide access to the at least one client device after the predetermined amount of time;
monitor the at least one client device for subsequent direct interaction data; update the stress value based on the subsequent direct interaction data;
determine the stress value exceeds the stress threshold associated with a second health intervention of the plurality of health interventions; and
execute the second health intervention based on the stress value exceeding the stress threshold associated with the second health intervention.
Subramanian, however, teaches to managing system access to a user where user data is collected by a user’s computing device (para. 20). Subramanian also teaches to assigning thresholds to different interventions (para. 34). Subramanian further teaches to restricting a user’s access to a device based on a user’s stress level reaching a predefined threshold level and enabling access when the stress level comes down below the threshold (para. 34-35). Subramanian also teaches to collecting real time parameters and implementing different interventions based on the current stress level (para. 20, 33-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli and Moenning do not expressly teach wherein the instructions, when executed, are further operable to: cease the intervention of restricting user access to the at least one client device after the predetermined period of time.
Subramanian, however, teaches to managing system access to a user where user data is collected by a user’s computing device (para. 20). Subramanian also teaches to assigning thresholds to different interventions (para. 34). Subramanian further teaches to restricting a user’s access to a device based on a user’s stress level reaching a predefined threshold level and enabling access when the stress level comes down below the threshold (para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 3. Karimli teaches wherein the instructions to execute the second health intervention is further operable to: modify one or more functions associated with the at least one client device associated with the user (para. 47: various interventions including restriction of device usage).
As per claim 6, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli and Moenning do not expressly teach wherein the instructions to assign the stress threshold to each of the plurality of health interventions are further operable to: assign each health intervention of the plurality of health interventions to one or more stress levels based on the degree of intervention; and generate the stress threshold for each of the plurality of health interventions based on the one or more stress levels.
Subramanian, however, teaches to managing system access to a user where user data is collected by a user’s computing device (para. 20). Subramanian also teaches to assigning thresholds to different interventions (para. 34). Subramanian further teaches to restricting a user’s access to a device based on a user’s stress level reaching a predefined threshold level and enabling access when the stress level comes down below the threshold (para. 34-35).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli and Moenning do not expressly teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein an increased stress level corresponds to an increased degree of intervention.
Subramanian, however, teaches to determining a user’s stress level via interaction with a mobile device (para. 9). Subramanian further teaches to assigning and selecting different levels of intervention based on a user’s stress level (para. 21, 52).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli does not expressly teach wherein the instructions are further operable to: determine the user initiated the direct interaction with the at least one client devices; and request indirect interaction data from a client device associated with the at least one client device and update the stress value based on the indirect interaction data.
Moenning, however teaches to collecting direct interaction data from a client device and collecting additional data, such as biometric facial data, from the user correlated with the direct interaction data (para. 31, 67). Moenning also teaches to updating a score based on the facial data (para. 69).
As per claim 10, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli does not expressly teach wherein the direct interaction data includes at least one of typing speed data, input data, grammatical data, interaction accuracy data, application time data, or speech pattern data.
Moenning, however, teaches to a smartphone based mental health and addiction assessment where direct usage data, such as input data, is captured from a user’s mobile device (para. 31, 41). Moenning also teaches to determining whether a relapse or recovery event is occurring based on the communication and present attributes, and upon such a determination, transmitting content to the user responsive to the event (para. 21).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli teaches wherein the plurality of health interventions includes at least one of playing content by a client device, sending a notification, sending a message to another user, requesting activity by the user, restricting access between the user and one or more programs on the client device, restricting access between the user and the client device, or shutting down power to the client device (para. 47: different interventions identified based on stress value exceeding threshold; interventions include displaying an alert to a user requesting a specific activity).
Claims 12 & 14-16 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1 & 3-5, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 8 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 18 & 20-21 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1 & 3-4, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 2, 13, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian as applied to claims 1, and in further view of Heneghan (US11191466).
As per claim 2, Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian teach the monitoring and intervention system of claim 1. Karimli teaches wherein the instructions are further operable to: generate the health profile for the user, the health profile including a baseline stress profile having a plurality of stress metrics (para. 20: system database stores user profile data such as historical interaction data).
Karimli does not expressly teach receive initial interaction data from the at least one client device; and determine a baseline value for each stress metric of the plurality of stress metrics based on the initial interaction data.
Heneghan, however, teaches to determining mental health and cognitive state through physiological and other non-invasively obtained data where user data is collected (col. 3, lines 15-25). Heneghan also teaches to determining base patterns for different metrics (col. 16, lines 35-49).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Heneghan with Karimli, Moenning, and Subramanian based on the motivation of screen cognitive states and mental health condition in a regular and non-burdensome way (Heneghan – col. 1, lines 45-48).
Claims 13 & 19 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14 regarding claims 1-8 & 20-21 being rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 regarding claims 1-8 & 20-21 being rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that:
The pending claims fail to recite the alleged abstract idea of “organizing human activity” and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea as the client device is an integral component of the solution by actively changing the state of the client device.
The Examiner, however, asserts that actively changing the state of the client device does not amount to a technical problem to a technical solution. There is no description regarding the details of the restriction of access of the client device. As stated above the restriction of access of the client device limitation has been identified as part of the abstract idea because this amounts to activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online or a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) – see MPEP 2106(a)(2)(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ronen (US20190074090) discloses monitoring or predicting user health with respect their use of connected computers, such as, mobile phones, tablets, or the like. Activities associated with a user and a computing device may be monitored to determine activity events. Deterding (US20210043321) discloses collected data can be wirelessly transmitted to a portable electronic device or monitoring and feedback platform where software will analyze the data and make assessments of the device wearer's health based upon the wearer's baseline.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights