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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 12/15/2025, regarding the rejections under U.S.C. 101 and 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Arguments to U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s first argument, that a human cannot physically monitor multiple physiological parameters and behavioral patterns in a weighted manner and then correlate the stress level of an individual, is unpersuasive. As one example, a physician in an ER would be monitoring a person’s heart rate, blood pressure, and blood oxygen at a minimum, while also monitoring a person’s behavior and psychological state to diagnose, i.e. correlate, what is affecting a person at the time, whether it is an injury, illness, or mental/stress-related illness. To diagnosis a condition itself involves weighting in the manner described by Applicant in the first full paragraph of Pg. 11 of the Response, as a doctor prioritizes certain symptoms if they appear in concert with other symptoms, while minimizing others. For example, a high heart rate alone might not indicate anything, but combined with rapid movements, high respiration rate, panicked statements, and a normal pulse oximeter reading heavily indicates a panic attack, but change to a low pulse oximeter reading and the combination could indicate respiratory distress. Even if Applicant considers this simplistic, the current claim language of Claim 83 supports this interpretation (rapid movements for behavioral data, panicked statements for psychometric, respiration rate and pulse oximetry for physiological). There is no requirement in the current claim language for a level or weighting or correlating that would require a higher level of computation than one of ordinary skill could perform mentally/using pen and paper.
Applicant’s next argument, that the process of a doctor or psychologist is not comparable to, is unpersuasive for the reasons listed above. The Examiner further notes that the system as currently claimed does not require continuous monitoring, just that the system receives data at a single point in time.
Applicant’s next argument, that Applicant’s invention is analogous to 2019 PEG Example 37 Claim 2, is likewise unpersuasive. Applicant argues that as the 2019 PEG states that requiring a processor amounts to more than a mental process is an oversimplification. The full statement is “the claimed step of determining the amount of use of each icon by tracking how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time is not practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage” (emphasis added). While a sensor readily outputs the sensor reading, usually in a visual manner, accessing the computer memory to determine application usage can only be performed on the computer, and on the particular computer being used. Claims 1 and 3 of the same PEG example note this difference, and indicate that the broader usage of a processor in Claims 1 and 3 render the claim ineligible. This same logic applies to the arguments to Example 38, as the claims are directed to an individual computer and steps further performed based on the individual computer, and to the SRI Int’l example, which involves identifying computer-based attacks on a specific computer/network.
Applicant’s next argument, that Applicant’s invention is analogous to Thales decision, is likewise unpersuasive. In Thales, the claims involved patent eligible subject matter because “The navigation equations in the '159 patent are derived from this particular arrangement of sensors. '159 patent at 7:41-8:55. While the claims utilize mathematical equations to determine the orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame, the equations — dictated by the placement of the inertial sensors and application of laws of physics — serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information in this configuration. This arrangement is analogous to the claims in Diehr, which required the temperature measurement "at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 179 n.5, 101 S.Ct. 1048. Just as the claims in Diehr reduced the likelihood that the rubber molding process would result in "overcuring" or "undercuring," id. at 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048, the claims here result in a system that reduces errors in an inertial system that tracks an object on a moving platform” and “Rather, the claims are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional [1349] manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame”. Applicant’s system, processing and weighting sensor measurements to make a diagnosis, is not integrated in the manner of Thales, nor is it unconventional as in Thales.
Applicant’s next argument, that Applicant’s claims provide an improvement to stress assessments by analyzing multiple modalities at once, is unpersuasive. Analyzing multiple modalities and weighing them against other parameters is routine and conventional in the art, as an example the cited prior art to Jain (Paras. 0160-0168) and Jeon (Para. 0125). Applicant’s invention is not analogous to DDR Holdings and McRO, Inc for this reason, as those cases involved a nonconventional approach to create the improvement.
Applicant’s next argument, that the multi-sensor configuration is not generic or insignificant pre-solution activity, is unpersuasive. The sensors are generic as they only exist in the system to collect the data needed to perform the abstract idea of correlating their results to create the stress score. The independent claims don’t specify what types of sensors are used, or how that specific sensor’s data is processed, as only the output of the sensor is used. While the dependent claims indicate various types of sensors that could be used as the behavioral and the physiological sensors, it further shows the type of sensor is not important, just the output data being collected. The sensors in the Thales decision were found patent eligible because the interconnected placement and processing (i.e. both sensors relied on the other to determine the one output of inertial data), not because the usage of sensors. The sensors of Applicant’s claims are not being considered in a vacuum, but in light of the claim language, which as shown above indicates that the sensors are merely being used to gather data.
Applicant’s next arguments, that the computer/processing components are not generic and the claims provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea, are likewise unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the analysis in the claim language is specialized and a technological improvement have been addressed above.
Applicant’s next argument, that the Office has not properly established that certain limitations are well-understood, routine, or conventional, is unpersuasive. While Applicant points to the fact that the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 103, stating that the cited art does not discloses a multimodal system of determining stress from multiple sensors is inaccurate. The 103 addition of Jeon is to add one specific type of data collected, i.e. the typing patterns. Applicant’s arguments to the improvement are not directed to the specific usage of the typing pattern behavioral data, but to the overall system, which as cited above is taught in both Jian and Jeon.
Applicant’s arguments on Pg. 25 and 26 of the response regarding USPTO Examples 21 and 35 are unpersuasive for the reasons listed above.
For the reasons above, the rejections under U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Arguments to U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to Jain, stating that Jain does not teach correlated stress indicators, is unpersuasive. Jain teaches in Paras. 0215-0220 various ways that the stress indicators are correlated with the other to determine if the change in one parameter is changing another physiological parameter, or if the change is due to stress. For these reasons, the rejections under U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 83-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent Claims 83, 88, and 93 recite a system, a method, and computer-readable medium, respectively. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 83, 88, and 93 recite the following claim limitations:
identify one or more co-occurring indicators across the physiological data, the behavioral data, and the psychometric data
calculate a stress score for the individual by aggregating and weighting the one or more correlated stress indicators
generate one or more stress management recommendations based on the calculated stress score
present the stress score in a graphical format and present the one or more stress management recommendations to the individual
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, i.e., using pen and paper. With a plurality of measurements for each of the variables of a patient, a human could reasonably determine areas of high stress for an individual, present the information, and provide recommendations to a person to alleviate that stress. For example, this is often the process followed by a doctor or therapist when examining a patient. Thus, the claims recite limitations which fall within the ‘mental processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims 83, 88, and 93 recite the following additional elements:
one or more physiological sensors configured to detect physiological data
one or more behavioral sensors configured to detect behavioral data
memory, and a processor coupled to the memory
a display interface
Claim 92 also recites:
a non-transitory computer readable medium
Using generic sensors receiving a plurality of measurements over an unspecified time span is merely insignificant pre-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The Examiner notes that these are generic sensors as they are only limited by the broad type of data collected, i.e. the physiological sensor could be an audio sensor to detect breathing patterns or coughing, a temperature sensor for skin temperature, a PPG sensor for pulse rate, etc. They are likewise generic as the sensors themselves are not used except to collect the data used in the processing steps.
Similarity, the computer components listed are likewise claimed at a high level of generality. The processors, display, and computer storage media are merely being used as a tool to carry out the method (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity, and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processors and computer readable storage media). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The inventive concept is merely claiming a routine and conventional method of analyzing data to determine the stress level of an individual, as seen in the art cited below in the U.S.C. 103 section, as well as similar cases seen in CPCs A61B5/4334 and A61B5/16.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 84, 87, 89-90, 92, 94-95, and 97-100 further limit the abstract idea by introducing limitations which are indicative of concepts practically performable in the human mind (using metrics to assign scores, a non-uniform rate of acquiring data, comparing data, making recommendations based on data).
Claims 85 and 86 further limit the types of sensors used, but the sensors are still recited at a high level of generality and are merely being used in their intended manner to gather data. The sensor(s) is being used as a tool to carry out the data acquisition. Even when viewed as a whole in combination, the sensors fails to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 91 and 96 further limit that the response action is an automatically generated and communicated notification including information. This is insignificant post-solution activity that is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Even when viewed as a whole in combination with the independent claims 1, the limitations fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 83-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20120289789 awarded to Jain et al, hereinafter Jain, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20150120205 awarded to Jeon et al, hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding Claims 83, 88, and 93, Jain teaches system and method for assessing stress in an individual (abstract), non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Para. 0078), comprising: one or more physiological sensors configured to detect physiological data (Para. 0060); one or more behavioral sensors configured to detect behavioral data including physical activity levels (Para. 0043) a memory (Para. 0407) configured to store: the physiological data obtained from the one or more physiological sensors and the behavioral data obtained from the one or more behavioral sensors (Para. 0078); and psychometric data obtained through questionnaires administered to the individual (Para. 0334); a processor coupled to the memory (Para. 0407), the processor configured to: identify one or more correlated stress indicators across the physiological data, the behavioral data, and the psychometric data (Paras. 0215-0220 teach how the data is correlated against each other to determine whether an indicator is a stress indicator or caused by other issues); calculate a stress score for the individual by aggregating and weighting the one or more correlated stress indicators (Para. 0160, “Analysis system 180 may use a variety of scales, both qualitative and quantitative, for assessing the stress level in a person. The stress level of a person may be quantified using a stress index, which may be any suitable scale for measuring or valuing stress. Analysis system 180 may quantify stress by combining data from multiple sensors 112. The simplest approach would be to assign a single numerical value, i.e., a stress index. Further refinements could be developed, such as, for example, a transient stress index, a stress load, a stress-resilience coefficient, or other suitable stress measurements. As an example and not by way of limitation, analysis system 180 could grade the stress level of a person on a 0-to-4 Liker scale”); generate one or more stress management recommendations based on the calculated stress score (Para. 0395, “In various embodiments, real-time analysis of data streams from sensor array 110 by analysis system 180 allows a user to receive real-time information about the health status of a subject. It is also possible for the user to receive real-time feedback from display system 190 (e.g., warnings about health risks, recommending therapies, etc.).”); and a display interface configured to: present the stress score in a graphical format and present the one or more stress management recommendations to the individual (Para. 0117, “As another example and not by way of limitation, data aggregation system 614 may perform a mathematical operation (such as, for example, addition or subtraction) on one or more data streams to generate a data stream. Although this disclosure describes particular types of operations performed on data streams, this disclosure contemplates any suitable types of operations. Data aggregation system 614 may transmit one or more data streams as output. As an example and not by way of limitation, data aggregation system 614 may transmit the data streams to an analysis system, display system, or network.”). Jain does not teach wherein the behavioral data also includes typing data.
However, in the art of stress detection, Jeon teaches monitoring typing patterns and data to monitor stress (Para. 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jain by Jeon, i.e. by using the typing parameters of Jeon as one of the tracked parameters of Jain, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements to improve similar inventions in the same way.
Regarding Claims 84 and 94, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the previous inventions. Jain further teaches wherein the one or more stress management recommendations comprise a combination of breathing exercises, physical activity modifications, and cognitive training tasks (Para. 0404, “Display system 190 may deliver a variety of therapies, such as interventions, biofeedback, breathing exercises, progressive muscle relaxation exercises, presentation of personal media (e.g., music, personal pictures, etc.), offering an exit strategy (e.g., calling the user so he has an excuse to leave a stressful situation), references to a range of psychotherapeutic techniques, and graphical representations of trends (e.g., illustrations of health metrics over time), cognitive reframing therapy, and other therapeutic feedbacks”).
Regarding Claim 85, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the system of Claim 83. Jain further teaches wherein the one or more physiological sensors comprise a blood pressure monitor (Para. 0105), a temperature sensor (Para. 0146, “As another example and not by way of limitation, analysis system 180 may be able to correlate a physiological data set indicating the subject had an elevated skin-temperature with a behavioral data set indicating the subject was engaged in physical activity to identify the physical activity as the cause of the elevated skin-temperature”), a skin conductance sensor (Para. 0196), and a heart rate monitor (Para. 0074).
Regarding Claim 86, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the system of Claim 83. Jain further teaches wherein the behavioral sensors further include accelerometers for detecting movement intensity (Para. 0247, “In particular embodiments, analysis system 180 may measure and monitor stress by analyzing one or more data streams from one or more physical motion sensors, such as, for example, an accelerometer, a kinesthetic sensor, an actigraph, a motion sensor, or another suitable physical motion sensor. A physical motion sensor may measure a person's speed, acceleration, exertion, movement, or exertion. After measuring the person's physical motion, the physical motion sensor may then transmit one or more data streams comprising the user's physical motion data to analysis system 180”).
Regarding Claim 87, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the system of Claim 83. Jain further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize stress management recommendations based on a severity of the stress score (Para. 0313, “In particular embodiments, a stress factor may be assigned to particular therapy. A stress factor is the change in a person's stress index associated with a particular stressor or therapy. As an example and not by way of limitation, a minor therapy, such a short breathing exercise, may decrease a person's stress index by 8 points on a 0-to-100 stress scale, while a therapy stressor, such as an hour of meditation, may decrease a person's stress index by 30 points on the same stress scale. Thus, the minor therapy would be assigned a stress factor of (-8)/100 and the major stressor would be assigned a stress factor of (-30)/100. Although this disclosure describes assigning particular stress factors with particular stressors, this disclosure contemplates assigning any suitable stress factors with any suitable stressors”).
Regarding Claims 89 and 95, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the previous inventions. Jain further teaches wherein the stress profile is recalculated upon receiving at least one of updated physiological data, updated behavioral data, or updated psychometric data (Para. 0147, “Analysis system 180 may also update and refine the predictive model based on new data generated by sensor array 110”).
Regarding Claim 90, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the method of Claim 88. Jain further teaches recommending one or more interventions to reduce stress based on the stress profile, wherein the one or more interventions are selected from a predefined database (Para. 0313, “In particular embodiments, a stress factor may be assigned to particular therapy. A stress factor is the change in a person's stress index associated with a particular stressor or therapy. As an example and not by way of limitation, a minor therapy, such a short breathing exercise, may decrease a person's stress index by 8 points on a 0-to-100 stress scale, while a therapy stressor, such as an hour of meditation, may decrease a person's stress index by 30 points on the same stress scale. Thus, the minor therapy would be assigned a stress factor of (-8)/100 and the major stressor would be assigned a stress factor of (-30)/100. Although this disclosure describes assigning particular stress factors with particular stressors, this disclosure contemplates assigning any suitable stress factors with any suitable stressors”).
Regarding Claims 91 and 96, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the previous inventions. Jain further teaches wherein the alerts include notifications sent to a mobile device associated with the individual (Para. 0412).
Regarding Claim 92, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the method of Claim 88. Jain further teaches further comprising categorizing the stress profile into predefined levels of stress severity, the predefined levels comprising low stress, moderate stress, and high stress (Para. 0166, “Other suitable Likert items may be used. The Likert items may be analyzed as interval-level data or as ordered-categorical data. As another example and not by way of limitation, analysis system 180 could grade the stress level of a person on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is the user's baseline stress when relaxed and resting and 100 is the user's maximum stress. A stress index may be scaled on an absolute scale or scaled on an individual scale. As an example and not by way of limitation, two users experiencing the same stress experience would report identical stress levels on an absolute stress index. However, two users experiencing the same stress experience may report different stress levels on individual stress indexes. A first user's baseline stress when relaxed may report a stress index of 0, which is different from a second user's baseline stress when relaxed and may also report a stress index of 0. Similarly, a first user may only have a minor stress response to a particular stress while a second user may have a major stress response to the same stressor”).
Regarding Claim 97, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 92. Jain further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to compute the physiological stress score, the behavioral stress score, and the combined overall stress score using weighted aggregations of the one or more correlated stress indicators identified from the physiological data, the behavioral data, and the psychometric data (Para. 0160-0165).
Regarding Claim 98, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 92. Jain further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to display the stress profile (Para. 0117).
Regarding Claim 99, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 92. Jain further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to log historical stress profiles and provide trend analysis over a predefined period (Para. 0159).
Regarding Claim 100, Jain modified by Jeon makes obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 92. Jain further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to recommend stress management interventions based on a combination of real-time data and long-term stress trends (Para. 0313, “In particular embodiments, a stress factor may be assigned to particular therapy. A stress factor is the change in a person's stress index associated with a particular stressor or therapy. As an example and not by way of limitation, a minor therapy, such a short breathing exercise, may decrease a person's stress index by 8 points on a 0-to-100 stress scale, while a therapy stressor, such as an hour of meditation, may decrease a person's stress index by 30 points on the same stress scale. Thus, the minor therapy would be assigned a stress factor of (-8)/100 and the major stressor would be assigned a stress factor of (-30)/100. Although this disclosure describes assigning particular stress factors with particular stressors, this disclosure contemplates assigning any suitable stress factors with any suitable stressors”).
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, Unsu Jung, can be reached at (571)-272-8506. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792