DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on March 18th, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 11, and 17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to systems and a method respectively and therefore fall into one of the four statutory categories. Claims 2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, and 16 further recite systems, and Claims 19-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, the dependent claims also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong One:
The substantially similar independent system and method claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following limitations:
A system for stress management comprising: an application on at least one electronic device including a memory and a processor configured for network communication with at least one server computer comprising at least one database;
wherein the application includes a first account and a second account;
wherein the first account is operable to upload new content to the application;
wherein the application is further operable to receive biometric data collected by at least one body sensor and a respiration sensor;
wherein the at least one body sensor includes a ballistocardiography heart rate sensor;
wherein the at least one body sensor is included in the at least one wearable device;
wherein the ballistocardiography heart rate sensor measures heart rate variability (HRV);
wherein the at least one server computer utilizes artificial intelligence to analyze population data;
wherein the artificial intelligence is operable to associate low HRV to a stress level;
wherein the artificial intelligence is operable to process the biometric data from the at least one body sensor and the respiration sensor into holistic biometric data;
wherein analyzing the population data includes stress pattern recognition across a plurality of user accounts;
wherein the artificial intelligence is operable to extract elements of the stress pattern recognition associated with elevated stress levels determined from the holistic biometric data and associate the extracted elements of the stress pattern recognition with relevant conversational elements for treating the stress level;
wherein the application is operable to analyze the holistic biometric data and determine the stress level associated with the holistic biometric data;
wherein determining the relevant conversational elements includes relating the holistic biometric data to a database of conversational elements;
wherein the artificial intelligence assigns all conversational elements in the database a confidence score;
wherein the confidence score is based on relevancy of the conversational elements to the holistic biometric data and past feedback;
wherein the conversational elements receiving the confidence score above a predefined threshold are combined into a conversational module and displayed on the application via a graphical user interface (GUI);
wherein the artificial intelligence includes a self-talk conversational element into the conversational module in response to the ballistocardiography heart rate sensor measuring the low HRV;
wherein the conversational module is custom created for a user account based on the holistic biometric data;
wherein the conversational module is integrated into a customized chatbot;
wherein the application is operable to receive calendar data from at least one calendar data source;
wherein the calendar data includes location data based on a location of a calendared event;
wherein the at least one server computer is operable to receive the holistic biometric data and the calendar data from the application;
wherein the at least one server computer is operable to correlate the holistic biometric data with the calendar data to identify stress patterns based on a calendared event;
wherein the at least one server computer is operable to determine and retrieve at least one recommended resource from the at least one database based on the stress level, the analyzed population data, and the calendar data;
wherein the at least one server computer is operable to send the at least one recommended resource to the application;
wherein the at least one recommended resource includes a conversational module, a connection to a counselor, and/or a mindfulness exercise;
wherein the application includes video chat and/or voice chat functionality;
wherein the video chat and/or voice chat functionality is operable to host the connection to the counselor;
wherein the at least one recommended resource includes the customized chatbot;
wherein the customized chatbot is created by using the artificial intelligence such that the artificial intelligence uniquely combines a plurality of the conversational elements module to treat the stress level associated with the holistic biometric data;
wherein the artificial intelligence is operable to compare live holistic biometric data to baseline holistic biometric data to determine a holistic biometric state;
wherein the artificial intelligence is operable to utilize the holistic biometric state and the calendar data to dynamically adjust the plurality of conversational elements in real-time;
wherein the customized chatbot is operable to respond to a user account via the conversational module;
wherein the first account is operable to control access of the second account to the at least one recommended resource;
and wherein the application is operable to present the at least one recommended resource via the GUI.
The series of limitations as shown in the underlined portions above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships of interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions- in this case, receiving biometric and calendar data, analyzing the data to determine a stress level, determining relevant conversational elements and outputting the elements to the user, determining a relevant resource and providing the resource to the user), e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed further below.
Dependent Claims 9, 13, and 19 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by specifying what the calendar data source is. Claim 13 narrows the abstract idea by specifying receiving location and/or calendar data and using the data to determine a recommended resource. Claim 19 narrows the abstract idea of Claim 17 by specifying the data comprises chat and/or location data. Hence, dependent Claims 9, 13, and 19 are nonetheless directed toward fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 11, and 17.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the application, memory, processor, server computer, database, artificial intelligence/machine learning model, body sensor, ballistocardiography heart rate sensor, respiration sensor, conversational module, chatbot, wearable device, conversational module, video chat, and GUI of Claims 1 and 17 and the application, electronic device, memory, processor, server computer, database, artificial intelligence/machine learning model, body sensor, ballistocardiography heart rate sensor, respiration sensor, conversational module, wearable device, conversational module, GUI, video chat, and the chatbot of Claim 17) amount to no more than mere limitations which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the platform includes a server platform including one or more servers connected to an application on a mobile device including a processor and a memory such as a smartphone, wearable, or cellular phone (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ 0078). Further, the progress over time to be tracked, measured, and presented by the platform through the GUI. By way of example, the GUI is operable to display graphs… [0086]. The recitation of artificial intelligence is also recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer algorithm. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the platform is operable to receive feedback about its ineffectiveness. This data is then used to train the artificial intelligence engine or the machine learning engine utilized by the platform to recommend more effective counselors in future situations [00136]. The Al is operable to analyze population data to predict the stress type associated with a user account [00335]. Further, the additional elements of the body sensor, ballistocardiography heart rate sensor, wearable device, video chat, and chatbot/conversational module were found to be generally linking to a technological field of use. Applicant’s specification explains that body sensors include, but are not limited to, respiration sensors, heart rate sensors, movement sensors, brain wave sensors, body temperature sensors, analyte sensors, blood pressure (BP) sensors, electrodermal activity (EDA) sensors, and/or other sensors that collect biometric data. Data collected by these sensors is referred to collectively or individually as biometric data throughout the present application (Specification, ¶ 0089). The heart rate sensor is preferably incorporated into a wearable device (e.g., Fitbit®, Jawbone®) …the heart rate is determined using electrocardiography, pulse oximetry, ballistocardiography, …[0091]. The chatbot is operable to output text and/or audio in form of speech to provide answers to the inputs. In one embodiment, the chatbot further provides and presents resources and/or conversation models associated with the questions/input [00332]. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 10, 12-14, 16, and 20 recite additional elements, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claim 2 recites the previously recited additional element of the body sensor and specifies the body sensor comprises a movement sensor, a brain wave sensor, a body temperature sensor, an analyte sensor, a blood pressure sensor, and/or an electrodermal activity sensor. Claim 4 narrows the recited additional elements of the AI/ML and the server computer by specifying the server computer determines the recommended resource using an artificial intelligence engine and/or a machine learning engine. Claim 5 narrows the previously recited additional elements of the artificial intelligence/machine learning, server computer, database, and the GUI by specifying the application receives data to the server computer, and the server computer determines and retrieves a recommended resource from the database. Claim 6 narrows the previously recited elements of the application, server computer, and database by specifying the application receives location/chat data and sends it to the server computer, then the server computer determines and retrieves a resource from the database. Claim 10 recites the GUI and specifies that the stress level is displayed on the GUI. Claim 12 recites the GUI and electronic device and specifies that the resource is presented via the GUI on the electronic device. Claim 13 recites the previously recited application, server computer, and database and specifies that the application receives data and sends it to the server computer, and the computer determines a resource from the database. Claim 14 recites the previously recited application, server computer, and the AI/ML engine by specifying the server computer receives feedback from the application to train the AI/ML engine. Claim 16 recites the electronic device and specifies the recommended resource is received by the previously recited element of the electronic device. Claim 20 recites the of AI/ML and specifies the recommended resource is determined by implementing AI/ML. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
The claims, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the application, memory, processor, server computer, database, artificial intelligence model, body sensor, respiration sensor, ballistocardiography heart rate sensor, conversational module, chatbot, wearable device, conversational module, video chat, and GUI of Claims 1 and 11 and the application, electronic device, memory, processor, server computer, artificial intelligence model, respiration sensor, body sensor, ballistocardiography heart rate sensor, conversational module, wearable device, conversational module, GUI, video chat, and the chatbot of Claim 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the sensor device, wearable device, conversational module, video chat, and chatbot were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more’ analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more"). For completeness, the Examiner notes that the prior art of record indicates that chatbots are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see, e.g., US2022/0229993 to Vu et al. at ¶ 0028; US2020/0228470 to Koo et al. at ¶ 0003; US2019/0142062 to Dayama et al. at ¶ 0070). Additionally, Examiner notes that the prior art of record indicates that ballistocardiography heart rate sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see US 20150112209 A1 to Blaber et al. at ¶ 0013; US 20200253480 A1 to Hall et al. at ¶ 0038; US 20230274833 A1 to Kourtis et al. at ¶ 0055).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 9 and 19 further narrow the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept or additional elements. Claim 9 narrows the abstract idea of claim 1 by specifying the calendar data source includes at least one external calendar platform. Claim 19 narrows the abstract idea of claim 17 by specifying the data further comprises chat and/or location data.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20 recite previously recited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the previously recited additional element of the body sensor and specifies the body sensor comprises a movement sensor, a brain wave sensor, a body temperature sensor, an analyte sensor, a blood pressure sensor, and/or an electrodermal activity sensor. Claim 4 narrows the recited additional elements of the AI/ML and the server computer by specifying the server computer determines the recommended resource using an artificial intelligence engine and/or a machine learning engine. Claim 5 narrows the previously recited additional elements of the artificial intelligence/machine learning, server computer, database, and the GUI by specifying the application receives data to the server computer, and the server computer determines and retrieves a recommended resource from the database. Claim 6 narrows the previously recited elements of the application, server computer, and database by specifying the application receives location/chat data and sends it to the server computer, then the server computer determines and retrieves a resource from the database. Claim 10 recites the GUI and specifies that the stress level is displayed on the GUI. Claim 12 recites the GUI and electronic device and specifies that the resource is presented via the GUI on the electronic device. Claim 13 recites the previously recited application, server computer, and database and specifies that the application receives data and sends it to the server computer, and the computer determines a resource from the database. Claim 14 recites the previously recited application, server computer, and the AI/ML engine by specifying the server computer receives feedback from the application to train the AI/ML engine. Claim 16 recites the electronic device and specifies the recommended resource is received by the previously recited element of the electronic device. Claim 20 recites the of AI/ML and specifies the recommended resource is determined by implementing AI/ML. Hence, Claims 2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 16, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything to what is already present when looking at the elements individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 are being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art as stated in the office action dated 12/18/2025. However, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 USC 101 as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the latest amendments.
Applicant argues under Step 2A Prong One, considered broadly, nearly any claim could be considered as reciting a judicial exception under this step of the analysis. Therefore, equally important to determining whether any judicial exception is recited is the classification of what in the claim is considered a recitation of said abstract ideas and what in the claim are considered to be something additional relative to the abstract ideas. The claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea but is rather is inextricably tied to computer technology. The claimed invention is not directed towards an abstract idea under DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., Appeal No. 2013-1505 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014). In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit found patent eligible claims addressed to creating a composite webpage to display a third party vendor's webpage embedded within a host's website in a way that maintains the illusion that the user is viewing content native to the host's website. Using the first step of the Alice test, the court found that the claims at issue were not an abstract idea. The "claims do not recite a mathematical algorithm. Nor do they recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. Although the claims address a business challenge . .. it is a challenge particular to the Internet." DDR Holdings at 19. Under the second step of the Alice test, the court ruled the claims at issue to be patent eligible because "they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." The claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, such as processing and combining raw physiological signals from multiple sensors into actionable holistic biometric data, inextricably tying the claimed invention to computer technology (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 11-13).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzing the claims under Step 2A Prong One, the Examiner identifies whether any abstract ideas are present. If any of the identified limitations fall within one of the groupings of abstract ideas, the claim is then analyzed in Prong Two to determine whether any additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the limitations are not considered until Prong Two, and, using broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of receiving and analyzing biometric data to determine stress patterns and provide resources to mitigate stress could be reasonably accomplished by a person using a generic computer (see the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 which states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping).
Examiner further notes that the instant claims are not analogous to DDR Holdings because in DDR Holdings, the claims were found to be eligible because there was no abstract idea present as the invention improved the functioning of a computer and was therefore technology-centric. Conversely, there is an abstract idea present in the instant claims as shown in the rejection above.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series or rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to determine a personalized recommendation for a user in order to improve their mental state. Examiner submits that healthcare itself inherently represents the organization of human activity. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instruction that a person or persons would follow to determine a personalized recommendation for a user in order to improve their state, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues Example 23 of the July 2015 Update says that a computer-implemented method for dynamically relocating textual information within an underlying window displayed in a graphical user interface is inextricably tied to computer technology. "The claim does not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously identified by the courts. For example, the claim does not recite any mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing information that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim does not set forth or describe an abstract idea. Instead, the claimed method is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces. Additionally, the claim does not recite any other judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is patent eligible." The present application describes a platform that collects physiological signals from multiple sensors, creates holistic biometric data from the combination of sensors, and monitors the holistic biometric data to determine stress levels, establish a baseline, and then detect elevated stress levels when there is a significant deviation from that baseline (Paras. [00337] and [0078]). The system is then operable to cross-reference contextual data, such as calendar events, to understand the situational causes of stress in the user (Para. [00338]). (p. 13-15).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzing the claims under Step 2A Prong One, the Examiner identifies whether any abstract ideas are present. If any of the identified limitations fall within one of the groupings of abstract ideas, the claim is then analyzed in Prong Two to determine whether any additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the limitations are not considered in the claim until Prong Two, and, using broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of receiving and analyzing biometric data to determine stress patterns and provide resources to mitigate stress could be reasonably accomplished by a person using a generic computer (see the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 which states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping). The additional elements of the sensors are not considered until Step 2A Prong Two because there is an abstract idea in Prong One.
Applicant argues limitations including an application, including a first and a second account, operable to receive biometric data collected by at least a ballistocardiography heart rate sensor included in a wearable device and biometric data collected by a respiration sensor, a server computer utilizing artificial intelligence to process the biometric data from the at least one ballistocardiography heart rate sensor and the biometric data from the respiration sensor to create holistic biometric data, the artificial intelligence analyzing population data, determining one or more stress level from the holistic biometric data, and associating the one or more stress level with relevant conversational elements, with the artificial intelligence including a self-talk conversational element into a custom conversational module, places meaningful limits on the alleged judicial exception that goes beyond mere drafting effort to obtain coverage over the alleged judicial exception. These limitations provide a particular improvement to the technical field of signal processing. In particular, this provides an improvement of creating actionable holistic biometric data from a combination of multiple sensors, which improves detection of stress levels. Further, the amended claims recite details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished. In particular, holistic biometric data is created from a combination of multiple sensors (e.g., ballistocardiography heart rate sensor and respiration sensor), which, in combination with the contextual data (e.g., calendar data), provide more accurate data to improve detection of stress levels (p. 16-17).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The distributed nature of the claimed invention is not, in itself, dispositive in determining whether the claimed invention recites an abstract idea because the concept of identifying and managing a patient’s stress level is not a technological solution to a technological problem – that is, the identified problem of managing stress has existed since long before the advent of computer technology, and thus, cannot properly be considered a technological problem with the claimed invention providing a technological improvement and/or an improvement to the computer itself.
The claims and the specification do not provide any evidence as to how the claimed invention improves the argued field of signal processing. MPEP 2106.05(f) states when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is nothing in the claims or the specification that indicate the invention provides anything other than, at best, a novel abstract idea of managing stress.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04(d) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application). The court has provided limitations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application and limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) – Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application). Here the instant claims seem more analogous to "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer (and in this case, sensors) as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues the claimed invention includes a combination of elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional under Example 35 of USPTO's SME Examples. The USPTO provided the following claim as an example of a claim directed to patent eligible subject matter: Example 35 Claim 2 which is eligible because "[T]he combination of the steps … operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer's identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone." In other words, when considered "[i]n combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or "skimmed" bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea." "Further, the combination of obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead of the ATM keypad) and using the image (instead of a PIN) to verify the customer's identity by matching identification information does not merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional sequence of events in DDR."
Similar to Example 35, the claimed invention includes the claimed limitations of an application, including a first and a second account, operable to receive biometric data collected by at least a ballistocardiography heart rate sensor included in a wearable device and biometric data collected by a respiration sensor, a server computer utilizing artificial intelligence to process the biometric data from the at least one ballistocardiography heart rate sensor and the biometric data from the respiration sensor to create holistic biometric data, the artificial intelligence analyzing population data, determining one or more stress level from the holistic biometric data, and associating the one or more stress level with relevant conversational elements, with the artificial intelligence including a self-talk conversational element into a custom conversational module. Assuming, arguendo, that one or more of these claimed limitations is known in the prior art, the ordered combination of these elements is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Specifically, the ordered combination of these limitations provides the benefits of more accurate stress level detection and customized, dynamic context for users (p. 16-19).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 35, Claim 2 is eligible under 101 because the combination of steps provides a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure a costumer’s identity is verified in an ATM. In combination, the series of steps of the claims presents a specific way to address a unique problem associated with bank cards and ATMs. Therefore, the claims provide a technological solution to a technological problem. Unlike this example, the instant claims do not provide a technological solution, do not solve a technological problem, and are not provided in any non-conventional manner. The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Examiner further notes that the data collection from the variety of claimed sensors is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is a tangential addition to the claim and is not positively recited. See MPEP 2106.05(g) which states the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
The argued steps of utilizing artificial intelligence analyzing population data, determining one or more stress level from the holistic biometric data merely amounts to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Further, as stated above, the GUI and chatbot elements are claimed in a manner such that they are well-understood, routine or conventional. For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear (Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on 4692959171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights