DETAILED ACTION
Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
Withdrawn Rejection
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of amendments filed to the claim on 8 December 2025.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation-in-part of application 16135989, filed 9/19/2018. Application ‘989 is a continuation of application 15644601, filed on 7/7/2017. Application ‘601 claims benefit to provisional application 62360186, filed on 7/8/2016.
Application ‘186 does not have possession of machine learning and group dynamics. Consequently, claims 1-19 receive the benefit date of 7 July 2017 and NOT 8 July 2016.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the sensing device" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 does not previously recite the term “sensing device”. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that “the sensing device” corresponds to “a sensing device”.
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.
The following rejection is reiterated claims 1-17 and 19 and is necessitated by amendment for claims 20-22 and prior art necessitated by amendment:
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claims 1-17 and 20 is drawn to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable medium. Claims 19 and 21-22 are drawn to a system comprising processors.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
The independent claims recite the mental step of receiving input data related to a particular group.
The independent claims recite the mental steps of determining a quantified group dynamic for the particular group and training the machine learning with the data.
The independent claims recite the mental step of generating an indication of the quantified group dynamic.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the mental steps of constraining the quantified group dynamic to comprise objective and subjective results, respectively.
Claim 4 recites the mental steps of receiving updated input data, determining an updated quantified group dynamic, and generating an updated indication of the updated quantified group dynamic.
Claim 5 recites the mental step of constraining the updated input data to comprise receiving ongoing sensor data.
Claim 6 recites the mental step requiring the input data to further comprise group information.
Claim 7 recites the mental step of constraining the input data to comprise user information.
Claim 8 recites the mental step of constraining the sensor data to comprise biofeedback data from the sensing device.
Claim 9 recites the mental step of basing the subjective evaluation data on sensor data.
Claim 10 recites the mental step of constraining the input data to other parameters.
Claim 11 recites the mental step of constraining the input data to comprise task information.
Claims 12-13 recite the mental step of constraining the source of the sensor data.
Claim 14 recites the mental steps of determining an event window and adding an attribute to the sensor data in the event window.
Claim 15 recites the mental steps of differentiating the training group from the particular group.
Claim 16 recites the mental step of performing an ongoing analysis of the input data to generate the quantified group dynamic.
Claim 17 recites the mental step of performing additional training on the machine learning algorithm based on subsequent subjective evaluation data.
Claims 20-21 recite the mental step of receiving ongoing feedback data from a member of the group for inclusion with the input data.
Claims 20-21 recite the mental step of requiring the machine learning algorithm to utilize the input data for an ongoing analysis for determining the quantified group dynamic for a particular group.
Claims 20-21 recite the mental step of requiring the electronic identification of the quantified group dynamic to be responsive to changes determined by the ongoing analysis.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-17 and 19-22 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment.
There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed analysis engine or the formats of the provided data require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-17 and 19-22 is/are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
The prior art article of Benedek et al. [Psychophysiology, volume 47, 2010, pages 647-658; on attached 892 form] teaches that skin conductance sensors and their uses are routine and conventional in the prior art.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed analysis engine requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-17 and 19-22 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is NOT rejected in this particular 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because neural network algorithm and deep belief algorithm are too complex to be done in the human mind.
Response to arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cites support for machine learning models in paragraph 112 of the specification. However, paragraph 112 of the specification only recites examples (i.e. and not a limiting description) of machine learning algorithms. Absent a limiting description of machine learning algorithms, machine learning algorithms are broadly interpreted to comprise simpler algorithms capable of being carried out using pen and paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek et al. [J Neurosci Methods, volume 190, 2010, pages 80-91; on IDS] in view of Burton [WO 2016/110804 A1].
Claim 1 is drawn to a computer program product comprising a non-transient, machine-readable medium storing instruction, which, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations. The operations comprise receiving input data related to a particular group. The operations comprise determining a quantified group dynamic for the particular group, the machine learning algorithm trained with at least group information, user information, sensor data, and subjective evaluation data. The operations comprise generating an electronic indication of the quantified group dynamic.
Claim 19 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 1, except claim 19 is drawn to a system comprising processors.
Claims 2 and 3 are further limiting specifying the objective and subjective results, respectively.
Claim 4 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 1, except the data is “updated” and not “input.”
The document of Benedek et al. studies a continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity [title]. Section 4 of Benedek et al. studies input/update data from a group of 48 student volunteers. Section 4 of Benedek et al. studies the objective result of group productivity of the subjects’ biometrics (i.e. group health) in response to bursts of noise of fixed duration.
Benedek et al. does not teach the machine learning aspect of the claims.
The document of Burton studies mobile wearable monitoring systems [title]. Page 58 of Burton teaches hearing tests where subjects are exposed to noises. Page 190 of Burton teaches the use of machine learning to optimize the analysis of the results.
With regard to claim 5, the abstract of Benedek et al. teaches the use of electrodermal sensors.
With regard to claim 6, Section 4.1.1 of Benedek teaches the use of a group of 48 subjects.
With regard to claim 7, Section 4.1.1 of Benedek et al. teaches that the 48 subjects are students at the Christian-Albrecht University of Kiel.
With regard to claims 8 and 12, the abstract of Benedek et al. teaches obtaining biofeedback from the electrodermal sensors.
With regard to claim 9, Section 4.1.1 of Benedek et al. teaches the subjective group unity in that all of the students are still willing to participate in the study after hearing load noises.
With regard to claim 10, Section 4.1.3 of Benedek et al. teaches noise level.
With regard to claim 11, Section 4.1.2 of Benedek et al. teaches the study is collaborative remote work in a soundproof cabin.
With regard to claim 13, the cover figure of Burton teaches monitoring signals using a watch.
With regard to claims 14 and 16-17, Figure 1 of Benedek et al. illustrates windows of event data annotated with attributes. Figure 1 of Benedek also illustrates ongoing analysis of input data to help generate a group dynamic. Page 190 of Burton teaches the use of machine learning to optimize the analysis of the results.
With regard to claim 15, Section 4.1.1 of Benedek teaches that the group of 48 students comprises the particular groups of 12 males and 36 females.
With regard to claim 18, page 190 of Benedek et al. teaches that the machine learning comprises use of neural networks.
With regard to claims 20-21, Section 4.1.3 of Benedek et al. teaches receiving ongoing biofeedback data from members of the group as a function of time that is input data. Page 58 of Burton teaches hearing tests where subjects are exposed to noises. Page 190 of Burton teaches the use of machine learning to optimize the analysis of the results.
With regard to claim 22, Section 4 of Benedek et al. teaches use of skin conductance sensors.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the study of group dynamics as a result of noise exposure of Benedek et al. by use of the machine learning applied to hearing tests of Burton wherein the motivation would have been that machine learning is a mathematical tool that facilitates optimization of results [pages 58 and 190 of Burton]. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining Benedek et al. and Burton because the machine learning of Burton is robust and generally applicable to biometric data, including responses to noise as in Benedek et al.
Response to arguments:
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., interacting group) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the claims recite groups, the claims do not recite that the members of the group interact.
Applicant argues that Benedek et al. does not teach group dynamics or group productivity. This argument is not persuasive because, while Benedek et al. does not use the terms “group dynamics” or “group productivity” the collective analysis of the data of all of the members of group as a function of time is broadly interpreted to comprise “group dynamics” and “group productivity.”
Related Prior Art
The prior art document of Lim et al. [International Journal of Psychophysiology, volume 25, 1997, pages 97-109; on IDS] teaches further analysis of skin conductance data by decomposing skin conductance data into tonic and phasic components [abstract].
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 Russell Negin, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1083. This Examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 3 pm and variable hours on Fridays.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Larry Riggs, Supervisory Patent Examiner, can be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/RUSSELL S NEGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686 19 February 2026