DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/11/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
This action is in response to the Remarks filed 07/11/2025.
Claims 2-10, 12, 14-18, and 22-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Figure 5A has been cancelled. The argument (pages 11-12) that the components of a cell phone are conventional and well known in the art and therefore does not need to be disclosed in detail is found persuasive. Therefore, this objection has been withdrawn. the argument (page 12) that all features necessary for understanding of the subject matter are shown in the drawings is not found to be persuasive. The method and system described, wherein a wrist strap including a heart rate monitor having a sensor sensing heart rate information from a user, the heart rate information is communicated to a cellular telephone, the heart rate information is compiled and analyzed to determine stress information, and the cellular telephone provides guidance to the vehicle must all be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Additionally, the features from the dependent claims are missing in the drawings. Therefore, this objection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. Independent claims 2 and 15 have been amended to clarify the stress information is determined based on a threshold, “the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving”, and wherein the cellular telephone “communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold”. Claims 11, 13, and 19-21 have been cancelled, and new claims 22-26 have been added. Applicant argues that every nuance of the claims does not have to be described in the specification if a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. However, this is not found to be persuasive. The claims contain information that is not adequately described in the specification to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as explained in the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-18, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 2 and 15 have been amended to clarify the stress information is determined based on a threshold, “the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving”, and wherein the cellular telephone “communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold”. Claims 11, 13, and 19-21 have been cancelled, and new claims 22-26 have been added. Applicant argues that Korman or Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Muehlsteff do not disclose the amended limitations. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, as explained in the office action below. New claims 22-26 are addressed in the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 07/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claims 2 and 15 have been amended to clarify the stress information is determined based on a threshold, “the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving”, and wherein the cellular telephone “communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold”. Claims 11, 13, and 19-21 have been cancelled, and new claims 22-26 have been added. Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea and are thus drawn to eligible subject matter. However, this is not found to be persuasive.
The amended limitation of “wherein a measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold indicates high stress” is a further data analysis step, the limitation of “the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving” is a part of the data gathering step, and the limitation of communicating with the vehicle is a further data output step.
As recited, the claims recite a method for obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring, comprising sensing a heart rate, transmitting the heart rate signal, receiving the signal, determining stress information based on predetermined thresholds, storing stress information, and communicating with a vehicle. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper or a generic computing system. For example, obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring in the context of this claim encompasses obtaining heart rate data of a patient, observing the data and analyzing it to determine stress information based on thresholds, and communicating with a vehicle. The receiving, determining, compiling, and analyzing steps are merely techniques that may be performed by a human. The processing and determining are merely analysis techniques for finding patterns and translating in the data, which may be performed in the human mind, or using pen and paper. The claims are drawn to a physician’s mental process of evaluating a patient. Thus, the claims recite limitations which fall within the 'mental processes' grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea. Further, these components are being used to perform the extra-solution activity of data gathering and analysis (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are applied with any particular machine, (3) effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method and system described, wherein a wrist strap including a heart rate monitor having a sensor sensing heart rate information from a user, the heart rate information is communicated to a cellular telephone, the heart rate information is compiled and analyzed to determine stress information, and the cellular telephone provides guidance to the vehicle must all be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The drawings also lack the subject matter of the dependent claims, such as compiled heart rate information and analysis for pattern and trends to identify stress information characteristics (e.g. types of stress and predicted stressful times of the day). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-10, 12, 14-18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 2 and 15 recite “determine stress information for the user from the signal indicative of heart rate of the user” without further instruction as to how stress information determined based solely on heart rate measurements. It appears that the disclosure is determining stress levels without needing to derive, via cellular telephone, stress information from a signal received by the HRM. The disclosure recites monitoring a stress level of the user (e.g., based on HR) (para. 0029) but lacks reciting how HR is converted into stress information.
Dependent claims 3-10, 12, 14, 16-18 and 22-26 are also rejected for reciting or relying on unsupported new matter. The disclosure lacks reciting the further claimed features of multi-day tracking of stress levels (claims 3 and 16); identifying historically stressful time periods (claims 4 and 17); identifying patterns of stress (claims 5 and 18); identifying cycles of stress (claims 6 and 19); identifying types of stress (claims 7 and 20); explaining how stress information shows low stress, high stress, or short term stress, or how those are defined and determined from the stress information (claim 8); how the cellular telephone is used to determine times of day that appear to cause stress for the user (claim 9); how the cellular telephone is used to determine specific activities or situations that appear to cause stress (claim 10); how the cellular telephone is used to identify a specific situation like driving, and how it is identified to cause stress, and how that situation is determined from the steps recited in the independent claims that lack support (claim 12); and how the cellular telephone is used to attempt to calm the user if the user’s HR exceeds a predetermined threshold, in accordance with the steps recited in the independent claims that lack support (claims 14 and 26). The disclosure recites helping a user maintain wakefulness while driving (para. 0034) or that HR might indicate a user’s response to driving conditions (para. 0037, 0047), without stating how such conditions are determined or correlated with HR to show that stress information based on the HR conveys such rich information as specific driving situations out of all types of situations and associated stress with the determined driving situation. The disclosure lacks showing how to identify specific stressful situations, that one of them is specifically a driving situation, and identifying “driving situations that appear to cause stress for the user” as recited in instant claim 12.
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 2-10, 12, 14-18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system and method of obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 2 is directed towards a system and claim 15 is directed towards a method, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 2 recites a system and claim 15 recites a method for obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring, comprising sensing a heart rate, transmitting the heart rate signal, receiving the signal, determining stress information based on predetermined thresholds, storing stress information, and communicating with a vehicle. The limitation of obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring, as drafted in claims 2-10, 12, 14-18, and 22-26, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. the heart rate monitor and cellphone). For example, obtaining and processing heart rate data for stress monitoring in the context of this claim encompasses obtaining heart rate data of a patient, observing the data and analyzing it to determine stress information, and notifying a vehicle. The receiving, determining, compiling, and analyzing steps are merely techniques that may be performed by a human. The processing and determining are merely analysis techniques for finding patterns and translating in the data, which may be performed in the human mind, or using pen and paper. The notification step is simply a data output step. The claims are drawn to a physician’s mental process of evaluating a patient. Thus, the claims recite limitations which fall within the 'mental processes' grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As claimed, the crux of the invention is the data analysis performed in order to process the heart rate information. The additional elements of a heart rate monitor having a sensor and a cellular telephone are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor to measure cardiac information and a generic cellphone to receive and analyze the data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Electronically receiving a plurality of measurements is merely insignificant pre-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner understands the step of processing data (data obtained by a sensor on a device) and performing the processing (by means of processing circuitry) according to a parameter, pattern, or correlation (based on analysis of the obtained data) as referring to the mere use of a computer to carry out data processing of the data. In other words, the limitation refers to using a computer to translate user data to more easily sort or rank said data. From there, the steps do not appear to be significantly more than the data processing and classification steps recited in the claims.
Furthermore, the data collection and data processing steps do not appear to be used to perform any treatment. The data collection and data processing steps instead collect and process heart rate data, or a signal indicative of heart rate data, (claims 2 and 15) without performing or naming a treatment for what purpose. The steps are merely pattern recognition and ranking of said pattern recognition. Applicant’s disclosure at par. [0029] describes comparing a measured heart rate against a predetermined threshold; par. [0029] describes visually comparing a measured heart rate to an ideal heart rate on a graph or display; par. 0030] describes measuring user data to monitor trends or patterns in the data; par. [0037] describes correlating a heart rate value with a known event or situation; pars. [0022-0023] describe a heart rate monitor that monitors heart rate of the user; pars. [0028] and [0030] describe a user device 106 (that may be a cellular telephone) that monitors stress of the user, paired with the heart rate monitor at pars. [0027] and [0033]; and par. [0019] broadly describes heart rate data logging and heart rate data analysis capabilities of the user device 106, wherein stress analysis seems to be based on monitoring and comparing values of heart rate to a threshold to classify for a stress level, par. [0029]. Applicant’s disclosure suggests general-purpose computer abilities of the user device 106, par. [0019]. Applicant’s description of using mathematical approaches to process the collected heart rate data and determine a stress level of a patient using processing circuitry of a general-purpose computer, is not extra-solution activity, but rather is the, albeit broad, solution related to the computer-implemented process of the claim. However, the requirement to assign this task to a generic computer process or algorithm is neither particular enough to meaningfully limit the recited exception nor does it have more than a nominal relationship to the exception. In other words, the breadth of the recited “heart rate”, “signal indicative of the heart rate”, and “stress information” used as the basis for processing the data by implementing a computer model, or the recited classification to sort the data for determination of stress information is such that it substantially encompasses all applications of the recited exception, while basing the data on a particular patient or stress information for correlation purposes represents a merely nominal relationship with the exception as it associates the implementing/classifying to all resultant likelihoods without condition. In fact, the claimed step effectively constitutes mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic manner using a computer. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or a technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, Applicant (as cited above) ultimately describes that the process may be performed by any data processing apparatus necessary to perform the analysis steps (par. [0019], “any device that is capable of supporting Bluetooth or similar technology”, e.g. “a cellular telephone, a web-enabled device such as a web-enabled cellular telephone or PDA, a portable web browser, a cellular or web-enabled wrist watch, a headset, ear piece, a microphone, a speaker, alarm clock, web-enabled or otherwise portable gaming device, a portable or desk top computer, an automobile, or any other suitable device…may be capable of receiving, transmitting, storing, compiling, logging, tabulating, and/or analyzing”), and Applicant ultimately describes that the improvement of the claim relates to processing patient data to assign an indication or classification of stress information (par. [0019]) HR and/or health-related information received by the device above; par. [0029], HR data analyzed for stress information), with data processing and using patterns from the data analysis steps (predictive capabilities) rather than how the claim is using that analysis and/or its results to practically apply the analysis to treat a disease or solve any problem. Although the claims recite determining stress information, according to patterns in heart rate data, the claims do not recite that the determination steps cause any transformation to a device, so that the claims are merely reciting data processing. The processing is merely pattern recognition and sorting the patterns for storing the processed data in the computer. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05(f)).
Claims 2 and 15 do not recite any particular structure aside from a heart rate monitor sensor and a cellular telephone to implement a data collection step, and processing means (via the cellular telephone) to implement receiving, compiling, analyzing, determining, and output (providing guidance) steps, with Applicant’s disclosure reciting that the receiving, compiling, analyzing, determining, and output steps may be performed by one or a combination of computer devices (para. [0019]). Claims 2 and 15 are a system and method reliant on a sensor, transmission means, and computing device to execute collecting user data and processing of collected user data, which is a high-level of generality, with no converting algorithm being recited, and with little detail of what is happening. The recitation merely refers to instructing processors or a computer to carry out the steps of identifying patterns. In other words, the computer components are being used as a tool to carry out the method (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). See also MPEP 2106.05d, in which the courts have recognized that when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, that the element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (issue of whether additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is factual). TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as “either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination is not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a heart rate monitor and cellular telephone amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional element does not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 22-26 depend on claims 2 and 15 and recite the same abstract idea as claims 2 and 15 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations in claims 3-10, 12, 16, 17, and 18 (i.e. further identifying stress patterns) are further data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claims 14 and 22-26 (i.e. providing a response to the user) are data output steps. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the 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 any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-10, 15-18, and 22-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korman et al (US 2003/0107487 A1, hereinafter “Korman” – of record) in view of Goyal et al (US 2006/0047187 A1, hereinafter “Goyal” – of record), in further view of Teller et al (US 2004/0034289 A1, hereinafter "Teller" – of record), and in further view of Brockway et al. (US 2006/0011399), hereinafter Brockway.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Korman discloses a system and method for stress monitoring (e.g. Abstract) comprising:
a wrist strap including a heart rate monitor having a sensor configured to sense a heart rate of a user and a transmitter adapted to wirelessly transmit a signal indicative of the heart rate of the user (e.g. Abstract; Par. [0001]; Par. [0013]: device that measures various physiological parameters; Par. [0015]: parameters include heart rate; Pars. [0019], [0036], [0065]: the device provides periodic or continuous monitoring; Par. [0037]: wrist-mounted device includes sensors and is attached to a wristband; Par. [0041]; Figs. 1, 2: wearable device 101 with a transmitter/communication unit 104; Pars. [0046] – [0047]: device comprising sensor data that is converted to a signal that can be transmitted, the signal comprising the data transmitted from device 101 to gateway device 110 by communication 121, said gateway device 110 is located relatively close to the user; Par. [0063]: communication may be one-way or two-way between HRM and device).
While Korman discloses a processor, memory, and analyzing the heart rate data to determine stress and stressful situations (e.g. Par. [0004]; Par. [0021]; Pars. [0025]-[0026]; Par. [0038]), Korman fails to specifically disclose a cellular telephone programmed to receive the signal from the heart rate monitor and determine stress information for the user from the signal indicative of the heart rate of the user, the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving; wherein the stress information is determined based on a comparison of a predetermined heart rate threshold for the user stored in the cellular telephone with measured heart rates for the user and wherein a measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold indicates high stress; wherein the cellular telephone is further configured to: store the stress information in the cellular telephone on a daily basis; and communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold.
Goyal, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards remote monitoring of a user’s health and emotional state. Goyal discloses a cellular telephone programmed to receive the signal from the heart rate monitor and determine stress information for the user (e.g. Par. [0041]: transmit the signal from the monitoring device to a cell phone; Par. [0055]; Pars. [0050] - [0051]: determining stress of the user); wherein the stress information is determined based on a comparison of a stored predetermined threshold for the user with measured data for the user and wherein the measured data exceeding the predetermined threshold indicates high stress (e.g. Par. [0041]); wherein the cellular telephone is further configured to store the stress information on a daily basis (e.g. Par. [0041]: continuous monitoring; Par. [0031]: memory to store the data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman to include determining the stress information as taught by Goyal to provide better medical monitoring and evaluation of the user.
However, Korman in view of Goyal fail to specifically disclose determining stress information from the heart rate of the user. Teller, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a system for monitoring the health, fitness, and wellness of a user. Teller discloses determining stress information from the heart rate (e.g. Par. [0033]; Par. [0059]; Par. [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal to include determining the stress information from the heart rate as taught by Teller because doing so would beneficially provide active determination of stress information when correlating heart rate and stress information.
However, Korman in view of Goyal and Teller fails to disclose the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving; wherein the cellular telephone is further configured to communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold.
Brockway, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards controlling a vehicle based on a user’s state. Brockway discloses the cellular telephone in communication with a vehicle in which the user is driving (e.g. Par. [0035]); wherein the cellular telephone is further configured to communicate with the vehicle to take corrective action in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold (e.g. Par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal and Teller to include a cell phone in communication with a vehicle and controlling the vehicle based on the user’s state as taught by Brockway to ensure safety of the driver and passengers (e.g. Brockway, par. [0032]).
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 3 and 16, Korman further discloses tracking stress levels over multiple days for the user (e.g. Par. [0021]: continuous monitoring of the user; Par. [0004]: determining stressful situations).
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 4 and 17, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellular telephone is configured to identify historically stressful time periods for the user. Teller, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a system for monitoring the health, fitness, and wellness of a user. Teller discloses identifying historically stressful time periods for the user (e.g. Pars. [0058]-[0059]: different types of events that can be low/high/short term stress based on the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include identifying historically stressful time periods of the user as taught by Teller to determine potential stressful situations for the user.
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 5-7 and 18, Korman fails to specifically disclose identifying at least one of patterns of stress, cycles of stress, or types of stress for the user. Teller, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a system for monitoring the health, fitness, and wellness of a user. Teller discloses identifying at least one of patterns of stress, cycles of stress, or types of stress for the user (e.g. Par. [0070]; Figs. 5, 8, 11; Fig. 8 in particular shows a histogram “270” of stress information determined from heart rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include identifying patterns of stress, cycles of stress, or types of stress for the user as taught by Teller to determine potential stressful situations for the user.
Claim 7 is obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claim 8, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the types of stress include at least one of low stress, high stress, and short term stress. Teller, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a system for monitoring the health, fitness, and wellness of a user. Teller discloses identifying historically stressful time periods for the user (e.g. Pars. [0058]-[0059]: different types of events that can be low/high/short term stress based on the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include identifying historically stressful time periods of the user as taught by Teller to determine potential stressful situations for the user.
Claim 2 is obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claim 9, Korman further discloses determining times of day that cause stress for the user (e.g. Par. [0046]: time and date for each measurement; Par. [0021]: microprocessor analyzes the data to compute medical information; Par. [0004]: determining stressful situations).
Claim 2 is obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claim 10, Korman further discloses determining activities or identify situations that cause stress for the user (e.g. Par. [0004]).
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 22 and 24, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the corrective action includes one of the vehicle slowing down, stopping, or limiting acceleration or speed. Brockway, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards controlling a vehicle based on a user’s state. Brockway discloses wherein the corrective action includes one of the vehicle slowing down, stopping, or limiting acceleration or speed (e.g. Par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal and Teller to include a cell phone in communication with a vehicle and controlling the vehicle based on the user’s state as taught by Brockway to ensure safety of the driver and passengers (e.g. Brockway, par. [0032]).
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 23 and 25, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellular telephone is further configured to notify the user to provide guidance to the user regarding how to lower stress with notifications via a display or speaker of the cellular telephone in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold. Goyal, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards remote monitoring of a user’s health and emotional state. Goyal discloses notifying the user to provide guidance to the user regarding how to lower stress with notifications via a display or speaker in response to the measured heart rate exceeding the predetermined heart rate threshold (e.g. Par. [0041]: when measured data is outside the threshold, audio and video notifications provided).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include notifying the user as taught by Goyal to help calm the user in stressful situations.
Claims 12, 14, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korman et al (US 2003/0107487 A1, hereinafter “Korman” – of record) in view of Goyal et al (US 2006/0047187 A1, hereinafter “Goyal” – of record), in further view of Teller et al (US 2004/0034289 A1, hereinafter "Teller" – of record), and in further view of Brockway et al. (US 2006/0011399), hereinafter Brockway, as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, in view of Muehlsteff et al (US 2006/0290516 A1, hereinafter “Muehlsteff” – of record).
Claim 2 is obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claim 12, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellular telephone is configured to identify driving situations that cause stress for the user based on past driving situations stored in memory of the cellular telephone. Muehlsteff, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a distress signaling system in a vehicle. Muehlsteff discloses identifying driving situations that cause stress for the user based on past driving situations stored in memory (e.g. Par. [0014]; Par. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include identifying driving situations as taught by Muehlsteff to determine stressful driving situations.
Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Korman, Goyal, Teller, and Brockway, as explained above. Regarding claims 14 and 26, Korman fails to specifically disclose wherein the cellular telephone is configured to attempt to calm the user if the user's heart rate exceeds the predetermined threshold by playing relaxing music or a pre-recorded relaxing message. Goyal, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards remote monitoring of a user’s health and emotional state. Goyal discloses attempting to calm the user if the user's heart rate exceeds the predetermined threshold (e.g. Par. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include notifying the user as taught by Goyal to help calm the user in stressful situations.
However, Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway fail to specifically disclose playing relaxing music or a pre-recorded relaxing message. Muehlsteff, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a distress signaling system in a vehicle. Muehlsteff discloses playing relaxing music or a pre-recorded relaxing message (e.g. Par. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Korman in view of Goyal, Teller, and Brockway to include playing relaxing music or a pre-recorded relaxing message as taught by Muehlsteff to provide feedback to the user to calm them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naboulsi (US 2004/0209594) discloses a safety control system for vehicles.
Irani (US 2007/0072616) discloses a method for preventing cell phone use while driving.
Chennakeshu (US 6,542,758) discloses a telephone for use in a vehicle.
Mueller (US 6,293,361) discloses a process for braking a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796