DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on June 18, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 – 13 are pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection to the specification, abstract, and IDS previously applied in the office action dated March 18, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) previously applied in the office action dated March 18, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error in line 4, where “on” in “where at least on of a magnitude of” should be “one”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 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.
The term “wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by the perspiration signal” is indefinite, as it is unclear how the signal can detect itself. Based on similar limitations in Claims 1 and 12, and the applicant’s specification, it is likely that the second “signal” was intended to be “a perspiration sensor”. For the purposes of examination, the term ““wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by the perspiration signal” is deemed to claim ““wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by a perspiration sensor.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“communication unit” in claims 1 and 12.
The claim limitation is interpreted according to paragraph [0027], [0028], and [0050] such that “The communication unit 8 is configured to be capable of communicating with a different device other than the wearable device 10.”, with exemplar devices having this capability being “desktop PCs”, “mobile phones (including smartphones)”, and “server apparatuses on the network”. It is shown as generic box element “communication unit 8” in Figure 2.
“display unit” in claims 1 and 12
The claim limitation is interpreted according to paragraph [0029] as “The display unit 6 includes, for example, a liquid crystal display or an EL display (EL: Electro Luminescence).” The “display unit” is shown as generic box element “display unit 6” in Figure 2.
“storage unit” in claims 1 and 12
The claim limitation is interpreted according to paragraph [0049] as ” The storage unit 5 includes a non-volatile memory for storing various programs necessary for the processing of the control unit 1 and various types of data, and a volatile memory used as a work area of the control unit 1.” The “storage unit” is shown as generic box element “storage unit 5” in Figure 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the claims recite "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and are therefore processes, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1
An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a perspiration sensor configured to detect a perspiration signal from skin of a user;
at least one activity sensor configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change or a pressure change of the user;
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to:
separate the perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance level (SCL), and a second fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance response (SCR);
determine, based on the activity-state signal, that an activity state of the user is a quiet state;
determine, based on the SCR, that emotions of the user are in a physiologically quiet state;
calculate an SCL reference value (SCLbase) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state;
calculate dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase;
calculate dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase;
obtain, from a look-up table, a gain that decreases with respect to the dSCL;
multiply the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR; and
output the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit, a communication unit, or a storage unit the second fluctuation component on a basis of the first fluctuation component.
Claim 12
An information processing method, comprising:
in an information processing apparatus including a central processing unit, a perspiration sensor, and at least one activity sensor:
separating, by the CPU, a perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance level (SCL),and a second fluctuation component that is a skin- conductance response (SCR), wherein
the perspiration sensor is configured to detect the perspiration signal from skin of a user, and
the at least one activity sensor configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change or a pressure change of the user;
determining, by the CPU, that an activity state of the user is a quiet state based on the activity-state signal;
determining, by the CPU, that emotions of the user are in a physiologically quiet state based on the SCR;
calculating, by the CPU, an SCL reference value (SCLbase) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state;
calculating, by the CPU, dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase;
calculating, by the CPU, dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase;
obtaining, by the CPU, a gain from a look-up table, wherein the gain decreases with respect to the dSCL;
multiplying, by the CPU, the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR; and
outputting, by the CPU, the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit, a communication unit, or a storage unit.
Claim 13
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising:
separating a perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin- conductance level (SCL),and a second fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance response (SCR), wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by the perspiration signal;
determining that an activity state of the user is a quiet state based on an activity- state signal, wherein
the activity-state signal is indicative of at least one of a motion change or a pressure change of the user, and
the activity-state signal is detected by at least one activity sensor;
determining that emotions of the user are in a physiologically quiet state based on the SCR;
calculating an SCL reference value (SCLbase) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state;
calculating dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase;
calculating dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase;
obtaining a gain from a look-up table, wherein the gain decreases with respect to the dSCL;
multiplying the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR; and
outputting the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit, a communication unit, or a storage unit.
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in independent claims 1, 12, and 13 these limitations include:
observation and judgment to evaluate and separate the perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance level (SCL), and a second fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance response (SCR)
observation and judgment based on the activity-state signal, that an activity state of the user is a quiet state;
observation and judgment, based on the SCR, that emotions of the user are in a physiologically quiet state;
evaluate an SCL reference value (SCLbase) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state;
evaluate dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase;
evaluate dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase;
observation and judgment, from a look-up table, a gain that decreases with respect to the dSCL;
evaluate the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR;
observation and judgment of separating, by the CPU, a perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance level (SCL), and a second fluctuation component that is a skin- conductance response (SCR),
observation and judgment, by observation and judgment of the CPU output, that an activity state of the user is a quiet state based on the activity-state signal;
observation and judgment, by observation and judgment of the CPU output, that emotions of the user are in a physiologically quiet state based on the SCR;
evaluating, by the CPU, an SCL reference value (SCLbase) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state;
evaluating, by the CPU, dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase;
evaluating, by the CPU, dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase;
observation and judgment, by observation and judgment of the CPU output, a gain from a look-up table, wherein the gain decreases with respect to the dSCL;
evaluating, by the CPU, the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
Similarly, additional exemplar limitations recited in the dependent claims 2 -3, 5 – 6, and 10 – 11 include:
observation and judgment of the gain from a memory- resident look-up table that is indexed by the dSCL
observation and judgment that the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state in a case where an occurrence frequency of the SCR is lower than a specific threshold.
observation and judgment that the activity state is the quiet state in a case where at least one of a magnitude of a body motion signal, and a magnitude of a pressure signal is below a corresponding threshold.
As claimed, the aforementioned limitations are mental processes that would be performed by a biomedical or engineering professional using their education, background, and experience, and a pen and paper or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 (and their dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, within the independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 11, the additional element of:
“perspiration sensor”
“at least one activity sensor”
“central processing unit (CPU)”
“display unit”
“communication unit”
“storage unit”
“non-transitory computer readable medium”
“computer”
Additional elements recited include a control unit to separate and correct in the independent claim 1, and additionally in the dependent claims to determine. This component is recited at a high level of generality. These generic hardware component limitations for the “perspiration sensor”, “at least one activity sensor”, “central processing unit (CPU)”, “display unit”, “communication unit”, “storage unit”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “computer” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Additional elements from independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
a perspiration sensor configured to detect a perspiration signal from skin of a user;
at least one activity sensor configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change or a pressure change of the user
output the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit, a communication unit, or a storage unit the second fluctuation component on a basis of the first fluctuation component.
in an information processing apparatus including a central processing unit, a perspiration sensor, and at least one activity sensor:
the perspiration sensor is configured to detect the perspiration signal from skin of a user,
the at least one activity sensor configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change or a pressure change of the user;
outputting, or outputting by the CPU, the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit, a communication unit, or a storage unit.
This limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising:
wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by the perspiration signal;
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
Additional elements from dependent claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 – 11 include extra-solution activity limitations, such as:
wherein the gain monotonically decreases as the dSCL increases.
wherein the first fluctuation component is a baseline fluctuation component of the perspiration signal.
wherein the second fluctuation component is an instantaneous fluctuation component of the perspiration signal.
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “perspiration sensor”, “at least one activity sensor”, “central processing unit (CPU)”, “display unit”, “communication unit”, “storage unit”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “computer” as recited in independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims is a generically recited computer and hardware element which does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 (and their dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “perspiration sensor”, “at least one activity sensor”, “central processing unit (CPU)”, “display unit”, “communication unit”, “storage unit”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “computer” as recited in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “perspiration sensor”, “at least one activity sensor”, “central processing unit (CPU)”, “display unit”, “communication unit”, “storage unit”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “computer” in claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “perspiration sensor” is described in [0032] – [0035] as “perspiration sensor 2” in contact with the wrist on a band, including electrode pairs that can be “a circular shape” but could also be a “polygon such as a triangle and a square”, and the “shape of the electrode 20 is not particularly limited”. It is shown as “perspiration sensor 2” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one activity sensor” is likely the “inertia sensor 3” described in Applicant’s specification at [0043], [0045], [0071 – 0072], and [0085]. It is shown as “inertia sensor 3” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “central processing unit (CPU)” and “computer” are described generically in [0047] “The control unit 1 is realized by hardware or a combination of hardware and software. The hardware is configured as part or all of the control unit 1. Examples of this hardware include a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), and a combination of two or more of these.” There is nothing particular to the structure of the “computer system” that deems it more than well-understood, routine, or conventional. As far as associated algorithms, the “central processing unit (CPU)” and “computer” are potentially described in more detail in [0064] – [0066] describing how the “skin conductance signal” is processed with modules including “an SCL/SCR separation unit 35, a difference extraction unit 36, a reference value storage unit 37, an activity state analysis unit 38, and a correction processing unit 39.” It is likely shown as “Control unit 1” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “display unit” is described generically at [0029] as “The display unit 6 includes, for example, a liquid crystal display or an EL display (EL: Electro Luminescence).” The “display unit” is shown as generic box element “display unit 6” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “communication unit” is described generically at [0027], [0028], and [0050] such that “The communication unit 8 is configured to be capable of communicating with a different device other than the wearable device 10.”, with exemplar devices having this capability being “desktop PCs”, “mobile phones (including smartphones)”, and “server apparatuses on the network”. It is shown as generic box element “communication unit 8” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “storage unit” is described generically at [0049] as ” The storage unit 5 includes a non-volatile memory for storing various programs necessary for the processing of the
control unit 1 and various types of data, and a volatile memory used as a work area of the control unit 1.” The “storage unit” is shown as generic box element “storage unit 5” in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “non-transitory computer readable medium” is described generically as “storage unit” 5 in [0026], [0046] “..various operations on the basis of various programs stored in the storage unit 5”, and [0049] as “non-volatile memory”. It is shown as “storage unit 5” in Fig 2.
As claimed, “perspiration sensor”, “at least one activity sensor”, “central processing unit (CPU)”, “display unit”, “communication unit”, “storage unit”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “computer” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices or hardware. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Applicant’s specification describes particular algorithms or structure associated with the “control unit” as with the SCL/SCR separation unit 35, a difference extraction unit 36, a reference value storage unit 37, an activity state analysis unit 38, and a correction processing unit 39.” However, this level of required structure is not alluded to in the claim language as currently recited with merely “CPU”. The claimed language of “CPU” in terms of broadest reasonable interpretation would include the non-specific control unit or processor capable of executing the claimed tasks of separating, correcting, and determining. The generically-claimed hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms in the claim language, Applicant is adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry”, which will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and method of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 10 - 13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 , 3, and 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vries (WO 2017/202626 A1), hereinafter De Vries, in view of Math with Mr. Barnes, “Creating a Table of Values from a Linear Equation”, hereinafter Barnes.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, De Vries discloses
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus ([Abstract], Fig 7), comprising:
a perspiration sensor configured to detect a perspiration signal from skin of a user ([Page 3, Line 10] “a sensor for measuring skin conductance”; [Page 1, Lines 12 - 13] “An increase in skin conductance is the result of sweating that fills the sweat glands with salty sweat.”);
at least one activity sensor ([Page 5, lines 15 - 18]; [Page 13, line 4] “an accelerometer”) configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change ([Page 5, lines 15 - 18]; “…motion detected by an accelerometer”) or a pressure change of the user;
a central processing unit (CPU) ([Page 4, Lines 13 - 24] “digital processor”) configured to:
Claim 12:
An information processing method ([Abstract]; [Page 2, Lines 29 - 31]) , comprising:
in an information processing apparatus ([Page 2, Lines 29 - 31]) “sensor device…signal processing”) including a central processing unit ([Page 4, Lines 13 - 24] “digital processor”), a perspiration sensor ([Page 3, Line 10] “a sensor for measuring skin conductance”; [Page 1, Lines 12 - 13] “increase in skin conductance is the result of sweating…”), and at least one activity sensor ([Page 5, lines 15 - 18]; [Page 13, line 4] “an accelerometer”);
the perspiration sensor is configured to detect the perspiration signal from skin of a user ([Page 3, Line 10] “a sensor for measuring skin conductance”; [Page 1, Lines 12 - 13] “An increase in skin conductance is the result of sweating that fills the sweat glands with salty sweat.”), and
the at least one activity sensor ([Page 5, lines 15 - 18]; [Page 13, line 4] “an accelerometer”) configured to output an activity-state signal indicative of at least one of a motion change ([Page 5, lines 15 - 18]; “…motion detected by an accelerometer”) or a pressure change of the user;
For the remainder of Claims 1 and 12, De Vries discloses
separate the perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance level (SCL) ([Page 3, Lines 24 - 25] “…enables detection of the overall tonic (i.e. SCL) response and separation…skin conductance”), and a second fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance response (SCR) ([Page 3, Lines 24 - 25] “…separation of the phasic (i.e. SCR) signals…skin conductance”);
determine, based on the activity-state signal ([0118] “accelerometer data”), that an activity state of the user is a quiet state ([Page 13, Lines 4 - 13] “A motion signal is derived from the accelerometer data and a threshold is applied. Three-axis accelerometer signals are processed to derive a motion detection signal when a movement threshold is passed.”,“If the data is determined to be invalid based on the motion detection signal…”)(Examiner notes that the threshold deems that the signal’s activity state is in a quiet or “not-moving”/”absence of noise” state);
determine, based on the SCR, that emotions of the user ([page 5, Lines 21 – 23] “Activities in the phasic skin response and also increases in the tonic component are indicators for emotional triggers in the recent past and may be used as inputs for Cortisol predication.”)(Examiner notes that the emotions measurements are coming from the SCL and SCR signal measurements) are in a physiologically quiet state ([page 15, Lines 1 – 5] “a quality of a detected edge (i.e. an indication of whether it is caused by changes in contact quality or caused by aphasic skin response) can be derived by combining all data used during detection. A determination module 82 filters out rising edges from the signal that do not conform to a particular specification:”; [Page 15, Lines 22 - 32] “An example of SCR detection criteria” and “An example of SCL criteria”; [Page 5, Lines 21 - 23] “…phasic skin response…indicators for emotional triggers”; [Page 15, Line 4] “the signal”) (Examiner notes that physiologically quiet is interpreted that the SCL and SCR are absent unnecessary noise, where quiet is “minimal noise”. In other words, quiet has a direct correlation to good-contact measurements with the skin.);
calculate an SCL reference value (SCLbase) ([Page 13, Lines 20 - 24] “…dSCL which represents any rise of skin conductance in a period of 1 minute not attributable to a phasic response, and therefore forming part of a general rise in the slower tonic response.”)(Examiner notes that the SCLbase would be the SCL measurement at the beginning of the 1 minute.) and an SCR reference value (SCRbase) ([Page 15, Lines 8 - 9] “SCR minima”) based on the determination that the activity state is the quiet state ([Page 13, Lines 4 - 8] “motion signal…threshold is applied”)(Examiner again notes that the threshold deems that the signal’s activity state is in a quiet or “not-moving”/”absence of noise” state. Below the “threshold” is quiet); and the emotions are in the physiologically quiet state ([Page 5, Lines 21 - 23] “activities in the phasic skin response and also increase in the tonic component…indicators for emotional triggers”; [Page 15, Lines 1 - 3] “quality of a detected edge”, [Page 15, Lines 22 - 31]);
calculate dSCL as a difference between the SCL and the SCLbase ([Page 13, Lines 20 - 24] “…dSCL which represents any rise of skin conductance in a period of 1 minute…”; [Page 15, Lines 32 – 33])(Examiner notes that the SCLbase would be the SCL measurement at the beginning of the 1 minute and SCL would be the SCL measurement at the end of 1 minute.”)
calculate dSCR as a difference between the SCR and the SCRbase ([Page 15, Lines 8 - 9] “SCR amplitude change (between the a maxima and minima)”)(Examiner notes that an “amplitude change” is a difference in amplitude between the “maxima and minima”);
obtain a gain that decreases with respect to the dSCL ([Page 3, lines 16 - 18] “…the amplifier has a logarithmic gain for generating an output signal which is a logarithm of the skin conductance, thereby with a decreasing gain for increasing skin conductance values.”) (Examiner notes that the phasic (SCR) comes out of the overall signal—the baseline (tonic, SCL) portion of the signal is the skin’s conductance. Accordingly as the skin conductance of the SCL component increases, the gain applied to the phasic signal decreases).
multiply the dSCR by the gain to generate a corrected SCR (Fig 7, “SCR” output is corrected SCR; [Page 7, Lines 26 - 27] “The amplifier has a non-linear logarithmic gain, with a decreasing gain for increasing skin conductance values); and
output the corrected SCR to at least one of a display unit ([Page 17, Lines 7 - 10] “…output device for presenting information…output device may be a display”), a communication unit ([Page 17, Lines 7 - 10] “…output device for presenting information…output device may be…wireless portable device of the user…smart phone”), or a storage unit ([Page 17, Lines 7 - 10] “…output device for presenting information…output device may be…wireless portable device of the user…computer…”).
For Claims 1 and 12, De Vries does not disclose from a look-up table.
Barnes teaches a process for plugging in values to a function to create a table of values. Specifically for Claims 1 and 12, Barnes teaches from a look-up table ([Timestamp: 2:22, “x, y” table from y = -3x + 1)(Examiner notes that the video describes a general process well-known in the art for creating a table of values from a function with variables.)
Barnes provides a motivation to combine with a summary statement of the video at timestamp 3:59 – 4:04 with “that’s a general way and how to create a table from a linear equation.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that the process depicted in the video with a simple linear equation, plugging in “x” values to get a “y” value to be collected in table format would be useful for “plugging” values in the logarithmic function disclosed by De Vries with SCL and SCR as variables to obtain gains for a table format.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to format the mathematical function relation of SCL and gain disclosed in De Vries in a look-up table by “plugging in values” as taught by Barnes, creating a look-up table of gains that could be visually referenced.
Regarding Claim 3, De Vries discloses as described above, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 3, De Vries discloses wherein the gain monotonically decreases as the dSCL increases ([Page 7, Lines 26 - 27] “The amplifier has a non-linear logarithmic gain, with a decreasing gain for increasing skin conductance values)(Examiner notes that a logarithmic gain is monotonic, as a logarithm consistently grows or decreases per the function.)
Regarding Claim 10, De Vries discloses as described above, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 10, De Vries discloses wherein the first fluctuation component ([Page 3, Lines 24 - 25] “overall tonic (i.e. SCL) response”) is a baseline fluctuation component of the perspiration signal ([Page 1, Lines 18 - 20] “The so-called tonic skin response or skin conductance level (SCL) is a response which varies relatively slowly over time…”)(Examiner notes that SCL is explained in Applicant’s specification at [0067] as the “low frequency component of a skin conductance signal and is a baseline fluctuation component”).
Regarding Claim 11, De Vries discloses as described above, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 11, De Vries discloses wherein the second fluctuation component ([Page 3, Line 25] “phasic (i.e. SCR) signals”) is an instantaneous fluctuation component of the perspiration signal ([Page 1, Lines 20 - 23] “The so-called phasic response or skin conductance response (SCR) (or galvanic skin response (GSR)) is a response which varies relatively quickly over time and depends on the emotional triggers”)(Examiner notes that the SCR is explained in Applicant’s specification at [0067] as the “high frequency component of a skin conductance signal and is an instantaneous fluctuation component”.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Vries in view of Barnes, further in view of Mikoshiba et. al., (United States Patent Application Publication US 2016/0242672 A1), hereinafter Mikoshiba.
Regarding Claim 13, De Vries discloses separating a perspiration signal into a first fluctuation component that is a skin- conductance level (SCL) ([Page 3, Lines 24 - 25] “…enables detection of the overall tonic (i.e. SCL) response and separation…skin conductance”),and a second fluctuation component that is a skin-conductance response (SCR) ([Page 3, Lines 24 - 25] “…separation of the phasic (i.e. SCR) signals…skin conductance”), wherein the perspiration signal is detected from skin of a user by the perspiration signal ([Page 3, Line 10] “a sensor for measuring skin conductance”; [Page 1, Lines 12 - 13] “An increase in skin conductance is the result of sweating…”)(Examiner notes the 112(b) interpretation above as “perspiration sensor”)
determining that an activity state of the user is a quiet state based on an activity-state signal ([Page 13, Lines 5 - 6] “A motion signal is derived from the accelerometer data and a threshold is applied.”; ([Page 13, Lines 4 - 13] “A motion signal is derived from the accelerometer data and a threshold is applied. Three-axis accelerometer signals are processed to derive a motion detection signal when a movement threshold is passed.”,“If the data is determined to be invalid based on the motion detection signal…”)(Examine