DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 11 June 2026. Claims 1 – 7, 9, and 11 - 22 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 13 and 21 - 22.
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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 3, “and, when” should read --and where--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 - 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 21, the limitation “when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention” is unclear as it is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 21, the limitation “when the stress intervention reduces the one or more physiological indicators of stress below a predetermined threshold for the type of stress, recommending that stress intervention over another stress intervention for that type of stress when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention” is unclear as it is grammatically incorrect.
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 – 7, 9 and 11 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus/method detecting, via one or more physiological sensors, one or more physiological indicators of stress; suggesting a stress intervention to a user; monitor, via the one or more physiological sensors, compliance with the stress intervention; and tracking, via the one or more physiological sensors, a reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, these claims recite a series of steps or acts, including detecting, via one or more physiological sensors, one or more physiological indicators of stress; determining, via one or more processors, a type of stress that corresponds with the detected one or more physiological indicators of stress by mapping a pattern of the one or more physiological indicators to one of a plurality of stress types stored for the user; initiating, via an output device, a stress intervention to a user; monitoring, via the one or more physiological sensors, compliance with the stress intervention by comparing a sensed inhale and/or exhale user pattern to a predetermined sequence associated with the stress intervention; tracking, via the one or more physiological sensors, a reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress; and assigning, via the one or more processors, an effectiveness of the stress intervention and store, in the memory, the assigned effectiveness for later selection among the plurality of stress intervention categories for the type of stress.
These claims follow more of the “methods of organizing human activity” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II), “interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), and “mental processes” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) where the steps meet this particular grouping because a human/practitioner could look at the sensors to detect if a user is stress, then determine the type of stress by mapping a pattern of the sensors to one of the stored stress types, then initiate a stress intervention to the user, then monitor the user’s compliance by looking the sensors, then track how the user is faring, then assign the stress intervention based on the reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress, and then store the assigned effectiveness of the selection for that type of stress. Thus, these claims are drawn to an Abstract Idea.
Next, these claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are identified as follows: processor/memory, the physiological sensors, the wearable device, and the environmental sensors. Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine and conventional means for data-gathering and computing as demonstrated by the following:
Stivoric et al (US 20140310298 A1) discloses a wearable device (“body monitor including at least one sensor”, [0011]) having one or more physiological sensors operable to be engaged with a body of a user (“data from a wearable body monitor, from sensors/transducers”, [0099] – [0103], [0153] - [0156]); “The sensor or body monitor may be utilized in connection with a remote processor, a local processor or without a processor.” ([0104] – [0107]); environmental sensors (Stivoric: “environmental data”, [0009], [0013], [0015], [0094], [0097], [0107] – [0108], Figure 11, [0107]).
Raniere (US 7041049 B1) discloses “one or more physiological characteristic monitors (PCMs) 14 may be coupled to the processor for monitoring a sleeper. PCMs may include any device configured to detect any physiological characteristic. Some specific examples of these include, but are not limited to, electrooculograms, electromyograms, electroencephalographs and other polysomnography monitors, microphones, motion sensors, moisture sensors, muscle tension monitors, blood pressure cuffs, respirators, pulse oximeters, thermometers, and the like, and any other sensor that can detect a physiological characteristic of the sleeper.” (column 6, lines 7 - 20) and memory (column 6, lines 36 - 50).
Fuerst (US 10252058 B1) discloses physiological sensors (column 2, lines 56 – 63; abstract), processor (column 4, 24 - 26), and memory (column 4, 24 - 28).
Applicant’s specification.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 and 11 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric et al (US 20140310298 A1, hereinafter Stivoric) in view of Fuerst (US 10252058 B1) in further view of Wood et al (US 20070056582 A1, hereinafter “Wood”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Stivoric teaches a stress management apparatus/method (abstract, [0099] – [0103], “Platform may be used in connection with an apparatus worn against the body with at least one sensor, a processor that senses the imminence of panic-attack, and that administers a claming agent through the skin - processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress”, [0153] – [0156]) comprising:
a wearable device (“body monitor including at least one sensor”, [0011]) having one or more physiological sensors operable to be engaged with a body of a user (“data from a wearable body monitor, from sensors/transducers”, [0099] – [0103], [0153] - [0156]),
wherein the one or more physiological sensors (“data from a wearable body monitor, from sensors/transducers”, [0099] – [0103], [0153] - [0156]) are operable to sense one or more physiological indicators of stress ([0099] – [0103], [0153] - [0156]);
an output device (Figure 20, [0189]; Examiner interprets components listed under WEARER OUTPUT/INPUT listed reads on output device in Figure 20.) communicatively coupled with the wearable device (“body monitor including at least one sensor”, [0011]);
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the wearable device and the output device (Figure 20, [0189]; Examiner interprets components listed under WEARER OUTPUT/INPUT listed reads on output device in Figure 20.), the one or more processors coupled to a memory (“The server may form a part of a monolithic computer, cluster computer, distributed computer, super computer, shared computing environment or the like. The server may be a Java, .NET or the like middleware server, such as for data storage and retrieval.” [0184], [0190]) storing instructions when executed operable to (“The sensor or body monitor may be utilized in connection with a remote processor, a local processor or without a processor.”, [0104] – [0107]; Figure 20, [0189]) cause the processor ([0104] – [0107], [0189]) to:
receive the one or more physiological indicators of stress from the one or more physiological sensors (“Platform may be used in connection with managing stress by providing a wearable body monitor having at least two sensors for sensing conditions of the body; and deriving an indicator of stress from the data streams of the two sensors”, [0153] - [0156]);
determine in real time ([0155]; Examiner interprets the paragraph reads on “real-time” as sensor(s) and processor sense disturbance and administers therapy.) a type of stress ([0099], [0113], [0118], [0121], [0133], [0153] - [0155]) that corresponds with the detected one or more physiological indicators of stress (“data from a wearable body monitor, from sensors/transducers”, [0099] – [0103], [0153] - [0156]);
apply in real time ([0155]; Examiner interprets the paragraph reads on “real-time” as sensor(s) and processor sense disturbance and administers therapy.) a stress intervention to the user ([0113], “Platform … sense body conditions and, in a closed loop, possibly without human intervention, administer a therapy which may change the body's state … a processor that senses the imminence of panic-attack, and that administers a claming agent through the skin … a processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress reduction”, [0153] – [0156]),
wherein the stress intervention is based on the type of stress (“administer a therapy which may change the body's state” [0155]; [0156]; [0118], [0121], [0136], “stress meters”, [0165], [0167]);
monitor, via the output device (Figure 20, [0189]), a compliance with the stress intervention (“monitor may assess compliance and adjust variables based on the level of compliance”, [0153] - [0156]; Figure 20; Examiner interprets the data from sensors are shown to operator via an output device such as a Tablet PC or third party monitors as shown in Figure 20.);
track a reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress (“data may indicate a reduction in a condition. The data may be used to provide feedback or to calibrate the system”, [0153] -[0156]); and
assign an effectiveness of the stress intervention based on the reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress in response to the stress intervention (“a processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress reduction. The determination to administer the feedback, determination of the duration and intensity of the feedback and the like may consider lifeotype information.”, [0155] – [0156]; [0118], [0121], [0136], “stress meters”, [0165] - [0167]; Examiner interprets through the feedback, if body’s state is not optimal, more administration of therapy is executed in which reads on “effectiveness”.).
Stivoric does not teach initiate a stress intervention for the user, wherein the stress intervention is selected from a stress intervention category of a plurality of stress intervention categories.
However, Fuerst discloses “system and methods of lifestyle management” (column 1, lines 21 - 22) and teaches initiate a stress intervention for the user, wherein the stress intervention is selected from a stress intervention category of a plurality of stress intervention categories (“if the system detects a pattern of frequent sudden spikes of pulse during the day, without extraneous physical activity, the interpretation might be that the user is under stress. In this example, the system might suggest stress management exercises, but also can suggest dietary supplements to address stress”, column 21, Iines 1 – 18; “stress management programs - during the daily routine, when the system detects a sudden increase in his pulse to above 80 and process this as a stress situation, the breathing exercise will be suggested, whereas for the other user, relaxing music will be the solution”, column 24, Iines 12 - 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method of Stivoric to incorporate initiating a stress intervention for the user, wherein the stress intervention is selected from a stress intervention category of a plurality of stress intervention categories, as taught by Fuerst, for the benefit of offering dynamic scenario based solutions. In a specific example, the user could define a variety of stressful trigger events and a variety of output events. In the example, illustrative stressful events that the system could detect could be: pulse rate spike of over 10; sudden increase in perspiration; sudden increase in body temperature of 1 degree Celsius. In an example, illustrative output events could include: breathing exercise; playlist of classical music; relaxing game; video clip of dogs playing in a field; or other output selected by the system and/or the user (Fuerst: column 24, lines 12 - 43).
The modified invention of Stivoric and Fuerst does not teach mapping a pattern of the one or more physiological indicators to one of plurality of stress types of the stored for the user, comparing a sensed inhale and/or exhale user pattern to a predetermined sequence associated with the stress intervention, and store, in the memory, the assigned effectiveness of later selection among the plurality of stress intervention categories for the type of stress.
However, Wood discloses “methods and devices for evaluating and treating stress and stress-related disorders” ([0002]) and teaches mapping a pattern of one or more physiological indicators to one of plurality of stress types of the stored for the user (“relationship between the changing heart rate and breathing is called respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA)” [0009], [0012], “a photoplethysmograph ("PPG") sensor and a display screen to provide subjects with information on their RSA waves” [0016], “methods and devices which give the user information about the transition in RSA waves from ascending points to descending points wherein such information can be used to guide the respiration of the user” [0019], [0080] – [0086], Figures 1 - 3),
comparing a sensed inhale and/or exhale user pattern to a predetermined sequence associated with the stress intervention ([0057], [0080] – [0100], [0141] – [0149], [0155], “Particularly preferred embodiments of the present invention also provide novel forms of biofeedback information that can be used to induce the desired physiological state through unique breathing exercises.” [0157], [0162], “biofeedback programs used finger PPG sensors, ear PPG sensors, and/or heart rate ECG sensors that attached to a computer via a wire” [0170], Figures 35a – 35b), and
store, in the memory, the assigned effectiveness of later selection among the plurality of stress intervention categories for the type of stress (“Methods and devices described above may be implemented, for example, as a process stored in a memory of a data processing device, such as, for example, a computer” [0216] – [0218]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Stivoric and Fuerst to incorporate mapping a pattern of the one or more physiological indicators to one of plurality of stress types of the stored for the user, comparing a sensed inhale and/or exhale user pattern to a predetermined sequence associated with the stress intervention, and store, in the memory, the assigned effectiveness of later selection among the plurality of stress intervention categories for the type of stress, as taught by Wood, for the benefit of “maintain[ing] parasympathetic outflow and thereby prevent and/or reduce levels of stress” (Wood: abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the one or more physiological sensors (Stivoric: “one or more physiological sensors”, [0108]) are an electrodermal sensor (EDA), galvanic skin response (GSR) sensor (Stivoric: [0140], [0145]), a photoplethysmography (PPG), an electrocardiogram (EKG) (Stivoric: “electrocardiogram”, [0153]; [0099], [0107] – [0108], [0134], [0145] - [0146]), an inertial measurement sensor, an accelerometer (Stivoric: “accelerometer”, [0145]), a gyroscope, a blood pressure sensor (Stivoric: “blood pressure monitor”, [0107]), a pulse oximetry (SpO2) sensor (Stivoric: [0099], “pulse sensor”, [0161]), a respiratory rate monitor (Stivoric: “respiration rate”, [0108]), a temperature sensor (Stivoric: “a two sensor array, hunger, temperature, fatigue”, [0146]), a humidity sensor (Stivoric: [0097]), an audio sensor, and combinations thereof (Stivoric: [0145]).
Regarding claim 3, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the one or more physiological indicators of stress (Stivoric: [0099]) are a change of one or more of skin temperature, heart rate (Stivoric: “electrocardiogram”, [0153]), heart rate variability, blood pulse volume, skin conductance, skin impedance, blood pressure, breathing rate, blood oxygenation, and/or perspiration (Stivoric: “indicator of stress from the data streams of the two sensors”, [0153]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claims 1 and 13. Stivoric does not teach the stress intervention is a breathing exercise having a predetermined sequence of inhale and/or exhale patterns.
However, Fuerst discloses “system and methods of lifestyle management” (column 1, lines 21 - 22) and teaches the stress intervention (“a guided instructed breathing exercises”, column 25, lines 4 - 5) is a breathing exercise having a predetermined sequence of inhale and/or exhale patterns (Fuerst: “a guided instructed breathing exercises. For example, one method of breathing is the Ujjayi breathing. In an example, a user of the system can be monitored using a microphone to ensure optimal breathing. Other breathing techniques may include, but are not limited to, “Equal Breathing”; Abdominal Breathing Technique; “Alternate Nostril Breathing”; “Skull Shining Breath”; Progressive Relaxation; Guided Visualization.”, column 25, Iines 1 - 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood, as taught by Fuerst, such that the stress intervention is a breathing exercise having a predetermined sequence of inhale and/or exhale patterns for the benefit of managing stress (Fuerst: column 24, lines 17 - 29).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claims 4 and 19. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the stress management apparatus/method (Stivoric: abstract, [0099] – [0103], [0153] – [0156]) monitors the compliance (Stivoric: “The monitor may assess compliance and adjust variables based on the level of compliance.”, [0156]) with the stress intervention (Fuerst: “a guided instructed breathing exercises”, column 25, lines 4 - 5) monitors an inhale and/or exhale user pattern of the user compared with at least of the predetermined sequence of inhale and/or exhale patterns associated with the breathing exercise (Fuerst: “a guided instructed breathing exercises. For example, one method of breathing is the Ujjayi breathing. In an example, a user of the system can be monitored using a microphone to ensure optimal breathing. Other breathing techniques may include, but are not limited to, “Equal Breathing”; Abdominal Breathing Technique; “Alternate Nostril Breathing”; “Skull Shining Breath”; Progressive Relaxation; Guided Visualization.”, column 25, Iines 1 – 12).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claims 1 and 13. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the stress management apparatus/method (Stivoric: abstract, [0099] – [0103], [0153] – [0156]), wherein the one or more processors (a processor that senses the imminence of panic-attack, and that administers a claming agent through the skin - processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress”, [0153] – [0156], [0104] – [0107]) is further operable to repeat the stress intervention (Stivoric: [0113], “Platform … sense body conditions and, in a closed loop, possibly without human intervention, administer a therapy which may change the body's state … a processor that senses the imminence of panic-attack, and that administers a claming agent through the skin … a processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress reduction”, [0153] – [0156]) if the compliance with the stress intervention is below a predetermined threshold (Stivoric: “The monitor may assess compliance and adjust variables based on the level of compliance.”, [0156]).
Regarding claim 7, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the stress management apparatus (Stivoric: abstract, [0099] – [0103], [0153] – [0156]) comprises one or more context sensors (Stivoric: “The sensor or body monitor may be included in home appliances and home automation devices, which may control lighting, temperature”, [0107]), wherein the one or more context sensors are operable to detect one or more environmental elements (Stivoric: “environmental data”, [0009], [0013], [0015], [0094], [0097], [0107] – [0108], Figure 11) of the user (Stivoric: [0009], [0013], [0015], [0094], [0097], [0107] – [0108], Figure 11).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claims 7 and 13. The modified invention of Stivoric and Fuerst teaches the one or more physiological indicators of stress (Stivoric: “indicator of stress from the data streams of the two sensors”, [0153]) are determined relative to the one or more environmental elements (Stivoric: “Environmental data may include data relating to light level (such as for sunlight and/or artificial light), weather, ambient temperature, humidity, wind, air quality, atmospheric conditions, water quality, environmental problems, location and/or nutrition (such as concerning food, beverages, vitamins and/or diet). The data may include contextual and/or situational data”, [0097] – [0108]) (Fuerst: “patients who are taught to recognize environmental and personal stressors can better manage them - group stress management program in a "real-world" setting can result in clinically significant benefits”, column 20, Iines 35 - 67).
Regarding claim 18, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claim 17. The modified invention of Stivoric and Fuerst teaches the one or more environmental elements are ambient temperature, humidity, air quality, noise level, ultraviolet (UV) level, and/or location (Stivoric: “Environmental data may include data relating to light level (such as for sunlight and/or artificial light), weather, ambient temperature, humidity, wind, air quality, atmospheric conditions, water quality, environmental problems, location and/or nutrition”, [0097] – [0108]).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teach all limitations of claims 1 and 13. The modified invention of Stivoric and Fuerst teaches the stress management apparatus/method (Stivoric: abstract, [0099] – [0103], [0153] – [0156]) wherein the one or more processors (a processor that senses the imminence of panic-attack, and that administers a claming agent through the skin - processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress”, [0153] – [0156], [0104] – [0107]) is further operable to establish a baseline (Stivoric: “norms”, [0127], “baseline”, [0140], [0183]).
The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood does not teach a baseline for the one or more physiological indicators of stress in an unstressed state for the user.
However, Fuerst discloses “system and methods of lifestyle management” (column 1, lines 21 - 22) and teaches a baseline for the one or more physiological indicators of stress in an unstressed state for the user (Fuerst: “Stress produces numerous symptoms which vary according to persons, situations, and severity - offer a dynamic a scenario based solutions. In a specific example, the user could define a variety of stressful trigger events and a variety of output events. In the example, illustrative stressful events that the system could detect could be: pulse rate spike of over 10; sudden increase in perspiration; sudden increase in body temperature of 1 degree Celsius. In an example, illustrative output events could include: breathing exercise; playlist of classical music; relaxing game; video clip of dogs playing in a field; or other output selected by the system and/or the user”, column 24, Iines 12 - 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus/method of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood such that the baseline is baseline for the one or more physiological indicators of stress in an unstressed state for the user, as taught by Fuerst, for the benefit of detecting abnormalities in user’s state of mind (Fuerst: column 24, Iines 12 - 43).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches all limitations of claims 11 and 14. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the baseline (Stivoric: “norms”, [0127, “baseline”, [0140], [0183]) is adjusted through continuous monitoring of the one or more physiological sensors (Stivoric: abstract, “Platform may be used in connection with patches and disposable sensors that may both sense body conditions and, in a closed loop, possibly without human intervention, administer a therapy which may change the body's state”, [0153] - [0156]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood, as applied in claim 1, in view of Kaneko et al (US 20180060536 A1, hereinafter “Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 21, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches assigning an effectiveness of a stress intervention (Stivoric: “a processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress reduction. The determination to administer the feedback, determination of the duration and intensity of the feedback and the like may consider lifeotype information.”, [0155] – [0156]; [0118], [0121], [0136], “stress meters”, [0165] - [0167]; Examiner interprets through the feedback, if body’s state is not optimal, more administration of therapy is executed in which reads on “effectiveness”.).
The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood does not teach monitoring, tracking and learning whether the stress intervention reduced a physiological indicator of stress; and, when the stress intervention reduces the one or more physiological indicators of stress below a predetermined threshold for the type of stress, recommending that stress intervention over another stress intervention for that type of stress when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention.
However, Kaneko discloses “a stress management system that manages psychological stress of a user” and teaches monitoring, tracking and learning ([0131] – [0137], Figure 7) whether the stress intervention reduced a physiological indicator of stress ([0167] – [0170]); and, when the stress intervention reduces the one or more physiological indicators of stress below a predetermined threshold for the type of stress, recommending that stress intervention over another stress intervention for that type of stress (“stress relief” [0131] – [0137], [0167] – [0170], [0215] – [0216], Figure 15) when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention (“stress relief” [0131] – [0137], [0167] – [0170], [0215] – [0216], Figure 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and method of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood to incorporate monitoring, tracking and learning whether the stress intervention reduced a physiological indicator of stress; and, when the stress intervention reduces the one or more physiological indicators of stress below a predetermined threshold for the type of stress, recommending that stress intervention over another stress intervention for that type of stress when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention, as taught by Kaneko, for the benefit of managing the psychological stress based on the calculated stress level (Kaneko: [0002]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivori, Fuerst and Wood, as applied in claim 1, in view of Aarts et al (US 20110015468 A1, hereinafter “Aarts”).
Regarding claim 22, Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood teaches the instructions “The sensor or body monitor may be utilized in connection with a remote processor, a local processor or without a processor.”, [0104] – [0107]; Figure 20, [0189]) and wherein determining (Stivoric: [0155]) a type of stress (Stivoric: [0099], [0113], [0118], [0121], [0133], [0153] - [0155]) includes determining whether the one or more physiological indicators of stress (Stivoric: “indicator of stress from the data streams of the two sensors”, [0153]) exceed a stress threshold (Stivoric: “The monitor may assess compliance and adjust variables based on the level of compliance.”, [0156]).
The modified invention of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood does not teach detect a pre-stress condition based on the one or more physiological indicators of stress exceeding a pre-stress threshold, and initiate the stress intervention in response to the detected pre-stress physiological condition.
However, Aarts discloses a “method of maintaining a state in a subject comprises measuring one or more physiological parameters of the subject” (abstract) and teaches detect a pre-stress condition (“the subject 12 becoming too relaxed perhaps approaching falling asleep while they are driving” [0024], Figure 2) based on the one or more physiological indicators of stress (“relaxation state of a user 12” [0024], Figure 2) exceeding a pre-stress threshold (“lower threshold 20” [0024], Figure 2), and
initiate a stress intervention (“a system which helps to control the relaxation level of the car driver 12 using a breathing guidance system. The output that the user receives may be an adaptation of an already existing output. In this case the level of the output is changed when either threshold is exceeded.” [0025]) in response to the detected pre-stress physiological condition ([0024] – [0025], Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Stivoric, Fuerst and Wood to incorporate detect a pre-stress condition based on the one or more physiological indicators of stress exceeding a pre-stress threshold, and initiate the stress intervention in response to the detected pre-stress physiological condition, as taught by Aarts, for the benefit of maintaining a state of mind in a subject (Aarts: [0001]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11 June 2026, with respect to claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objection for claim 1 of 11 March 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 11 June 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claim 22 has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 11 March 2026 has been withdrawn except for the one below.
Claim 21, the limitation “when the stress intervention reduces the stress of the user below a predetermined threshold, recommending the stress intervention for the type of stress over another stress intervention” is unclear as it is grammatically incorrect.
Applicant's arguments, pages 7 – 11, filed 11 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant contends “the claims are not directed to and do not recite an abstract idea, neither a method of organizing human activity or mental process”. However, these claims still follow more of the “methods of organizing human activity” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II), “interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), and “mental processes” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) where the steps meet this particular grouping and are still drawn to an Abstract Idea. See the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above. It is noted the entirety of the claim does not need to recite the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 7, 9, and 11 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 11 - 12, filed 11 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends Stivoric fails to teach, disclose, or even suggest determining a type of stress and “Stivoric does not teach determining a "type of stress" in any meaningful sense. The passages relied upon describe the detection of a "stress-related state" and the administration of therapies such as a tactile reminder or calming agent in response to that detection. Paragraphs [0153]-[0155] disclose managing stress by sensing "body conditions" and, "in a closed loop, possibly without human intervention, administer a therapy which may change the body's state.”.
However, the written claims do not explain what “type of stress” entails/refers to. Stivoric discloses “patches and disposable sensors that may both sense body conditions and, in a closed loop, possibly without human intervention, administer a therapy which may change the body's state” ([0155]) and the rest of paragraph [0155] relates to determining a type of stress as examiner interprets having stress and no stress are types/states of stress.
Applicant's arguments, pages 12 – 13, filed 11 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “The passages cited from Stivoric do not teach assigning an effectiveness rating to a stress intervention or storing such an effectiveness assignment for later selection among a plurality of categorized interventions. Paragraph [0155] describes administering a therapy and considering "lifeotype information" in determining the duration and intensity of feedback. Paragraph [0156] states that a "monitor may assess compliance and adjust variables based on the level of compliance." Neither passage discloses assigning a discrete effectiveness value to an intervention based on the measured reduction in physiological indicators of stress, nor storing that effectiveness assignment to inform future selection from a plurality of stress intervention categories.”.
However, Stivoric teaches assign an effectiveness of the stress intervention based on the reduction of the one or more physiological indicators of stress in response to the stress intervention (“a processor that senses the presence of stress and that administers a tactile reminder to promote bio-feedback for stress reduction. The determination to administer the feedback, determination of the duration and intensity of the feedback and the like may consider lifeotype information.”, [0155] – [0156]; [0118], [0121], [0136], “stress meters”, [0165] - [0167]; Examiner interprets through the feedback, if body’s state is not optimal, more administration of therapy is executed in which reads on “effectiveness”.). See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections above.
Applicant's arguments, page 13, filed 11 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “The Office Action's stated rationale for combining Stivoric with Fuerst is that it would have been obvious "for the benefit of offering dynamic scenario based solutions" and to permit a user to "define a variety of stressful trigger events and a variety of output events." This rationale is conclusory and fails to satisfy the standard set by KSR and Kahn for an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. The rationale does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art, working with the system of Stivoric, would have been motivated to incorporate Fuerst's user-configurable trigger-and-output architecture in the specific manner proposed.”
However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, working with the system of Stivoric to incorporate Fuerst's user-configurable trigger-and-output architecture for invoking relaxation intervention to reduce stress levels (abstract, column 12, line 35) as needed based on the dynamic scenario.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dardik et al (US 20020155924 A1) discloses “systems and methods for promoting ischemic preconditioning in individuals by exercise treatments that coordinate a breathing regimen with cycles of alternating stress and relaxation” (abstract, [0019]).
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
