DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 01/16/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 are cancelled.
Claim 3 is objected to.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/JP2019/039716, filed 10/08/2019, is acknowledged.
Accordingly, each of claims 1-15 are afforded the effective filing date of 10/08/2019.
Claim Objections
The outstanding objections to claims 2 and 4-5 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and cancelations submitted herein. The objection to claim 3 is maintained.
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claims 3, limitations, recite “The stress analysis apparatus according to claim 1, further at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:”. Please amend to ”The stress analysis apparatus according to claim 1, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute instructions to:” because it is assumed to provide antecedent basis and correct grammar.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This rejection pertains to new matter. The rejection is newly stated based upon claim amendment.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recites “obtain a time-series heart rate data, of a user and from a heart rate meter”. The specification as published provides support for a pulse rate meter for detecting heart rate [0022] not a heart rate meter as they are not equivalents. However, there is not support within the specification, nor has Applicant provided such support, for detecting heart rate with a heart rate meter. Therefore, the limitation introduces new matter. Claims 3-5, 8-10 , and 13-15 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1, 5, and 11.
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.
For the following rejections, underlined text indicates newly recited portions necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to apparatus, method, and process i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11:
obtain a time-series heart rate data, of a user and from a heart rate meter provided in a user terminal of the user, and a time-series sweating amount data, of the user and from a sweat meter provided in the user terminal, at timings corresponding to a plurality of timings at which a heart rate is measured
estimate, by using a machine learning model and based on the time-series heart rate data and the time-series sweating amount data, a stress level of the user at each of the plurality of timings, and specify a time-series change of the stress level of the user
specify, as a specified time period, a time period during which the stress level of the user continuously remains any of at and above a predetermined threshold
associate, as associated information, the specified time period, the information regarding the user, and the supplementary information with one another, and store the associated information in the at least one memory.
Independent claim 3, 8, and 13:
specify, as the information regarding the user, the event information as coinciding with the specified time period.
Independent claim 5, 10, and 14:
specify a first time period, during which the user is in a first stress state, and a second time period during which the user is in a second stress state in which the user is less stressed than in the first stress state.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation because the method only requires a user to manually estimate, specify, associate, and access. Without further detail as to the methodology involved in “estimate a stress level of a user”, “specify a time period”, “associate the specified time period with information”, “access data”, “associate the information”, “access a schedule management program”, and “specify a first time” under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to analysis stress.
Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 11 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11:
obtain a time-series heart rate data, of a user and from a heart rate meter provided in a user terminal of the user, and a time-series sweating amount data, of the user and from a sweat meter provided in the user terminal, at timings corresponding to a plurality of timings at which a heart rate is measured.
output the specified time period in a manner distinguishable from another time period and control the user terminal so as to accept, via a display of the user terminal, input of information regarding the user, the information regarding the user including at least one of an event information in which the user has participated including a duration of an event, an environment information around the user including at least one of weather, temperature and humidity, and person information regarding a person related to the user, and the information regarding the user is accepted via the display of the user terminal
obtain, as supplementary information, information regarding the user in the specified time period and from the at least one of the schedule management program and the communication tool program
Dependent claims 4, 9, and 14:
display the specified time period and the information regarding the user in association with each other on a screen.
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claim 1 includes an apparatus with display, memory, processor, and terminal and claim 11 includes non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data gathering, such as “obtain”, and data outputting, such as “display”, perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data gathering and outputting do not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering and outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of display, memory, processor, terminal, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1 and 11 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0021, 0072-0077]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Applicant submits the claims are not directed to any abstract idea, the claims should be found patent eligible under 35 USC 101 [p. 13, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. As explained above, estimating a stress level is a numerical quantity. The machine learning model in the instant claims is a mathematical operation. Specifying a time period and associating information are both mental processes.
Applicant submits the claims are certainly "particular" or at least more "particular" than "merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome” [p.16, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C, merely claiming that a concept that can be performed in the human mind is performed on a generic computer does not negate that the claim is still considered to recite a mental process. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(f) sets forth that simply adding a general purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Since the claims do not provide any specific computational structures, it appears that the processor equates to a generic computer component to implement the abstract idea, which does not change the fact that the claims recite a mental process or mathematical concept. As the specification discloses “merely quantifying a change of the stress level is insufficient to reduce the stress, and the cause of the stress needs to be specified. In these methods, specification of the cause of the stress needs to be performed manually” [0007].
Applicant submits the specification in this application describes an improvement and the claims reflect that improvement [p. 17, par. 2].
It is respectfully not persuasive. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result us not considered an improvement to technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The outstanding 102 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments and cancelations submitted herein.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (WO 2019/078507 A1, published 04/25/2019, cited on IDS 06/07/2022).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 6 is directed to a method, and claim 11 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Hong discloses electronic device and method for providing stress index corresponding to activity of user [title]. Hong further discloses the instruction may include a code generated or executed by a compiler or an interpreter and the machine-readable storage media may be provided in the form of non-transitory storage media [130], which reads on an apparatus, method, and medium.
Claim 1 is directed to a stress analysis …: obtain a time-series heart rate data, of a user and from a heart rate meter provided in a user terminal of the user, and a time-series sweating amount data, of the user and from a sweat meter provided in the user terminal, at timings corresponding to a plurality of timings at which a heart rate is measured;
Hong discloses an electronic device is provided that includes a display, a biometric sensor, a motion sensor, a communication circuit configured to receive a signal for obtaining information related to a location of the electronic device, and a processor electrically connected with the display, the biometric sensor, the motion sensor, and the communication circuit, wherein the processor is configured to identify repeated activities related to the user, which follow a lapse of time, based on motion information obtained according to the lapse of time by using the motion sensor and location information obtained according to the lapse of time by using the communication module, calculate a stress index of the user corresponding to the repeated activities based on biometric information obtained by using the biometric sensor, and provide at least one activity of the repeated activities and a stress index corresponding to the at least one activity [abstract]. Hong further discloses the sensor module may detect information on some of an acceleration of the electronic device , a HR of the user, an angular speed of the electronic device, a skin temperature of the user, a skin conductivity of the user, a blood pressure of the user, a blood flow rate of the user, or blood glucose of the user [54] which reads on obtain a time-series heart rate data, of a user and from a heart rate meter.
estimate, by using a machine learning model and based on the time-series heart rate data and the time-series sweating amount data, a stress level of the user at each of the plurality of timings, and specify a time-series change of the stress level the user;
Hong discloses the processor may estimate the stress index of the user by using physiological reaction data of the user measured by the sensor module [68]. Hong further discloses the processor may calculate a stress index of the user according to time based on at least one of the HR information or the HRV information [68]. Hong also discloses the processor may further use skin temperature information, skin conductivity information, and/or blood pressure information to calculate a stress index [68]. Hong further discloses the processor may calculate a stress index by using a machine learning system, for example, a neural network or a support vector machine (SVM) [68].
specify, as a specified time period, a time period during which the stress level of the user continuously remains any of at and above a predetermined threshold;
Hong discloses the electronic device may obtain state information associated with the repeated activity of the user based on acceleration information, location information, and time information [108]. Hong further discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to: if the stress index is higher than a specified value, control an external device connected to the electronic device to mitigate stress [claim 14].
output the specified time period in a manner distinguishable from another time period and control the user terminal so as to accept, via a display of the user terminal, input of information regarding the user, the information regarding the user including at least one of an event information in which the user has participated including a duration of an event, an environment information around the user including at least one of weather, temperature and humidity, and person information regarding a person related to the user, and the information regarding the user is accepted via the display of the user terminal;
Hong discloses the electronic device may obtain state information associated with the repeated activity of the user based on acceleration information, location information, and time information [108]. Hong further discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to: if the stress index is higher than a specified value, control an external device connected to the electronic device to mitigate stress [claim 14]. Hong also discloses the electronic device may register the activity that is not included in the routine as an event according to a request of the user [120]. Hong further discloses the input device may be a device for receiving a command or data, which is used for a component (e.g., the processor of the electronic device, from an outside (e.g., a user) of the electronic device [36].
access at least one of a schedule management program and a communication tool program incorporated in the user terminal, and obtain, as supplementary information, information regarding the user in the specified time period and from the at least one of the schedule management program and the communication tool program; and
Hong discloses the electronic device may obtain state information associated with the repeated activity of the user based on acceleration information, location information, and time information [108]. Hong further discloses the electronic device, wherein the processor is configured to: if the stress index is higher than a specified value, control an external device connected to the electronic device to mitigate stress [claim 14].
associate, as associated information, the specified time period, the information regarding the user, and the supplementary information with one another, and store the associated information in the at least one memory
Hong discloses the processor may store surrounding environment information of the electronic device in association with the repeated activities related to the user [59]. Hong further discloses the user of the electronic device repeatedly performs the same activity a specified number of times or more for a time period of a specified range, obtain the state information associated with the same activity [claim 9].
Claims 3, 8, and 13 are directed to …access the schedule management program as the at least one of the schedule management program and the communication tool program and specify, as the information regarding the user, the event information as coinciding with the specified time period.
Hong discloses the processor may store surrounding environment information of the electronic device in association with the repeated activities related to the user [59]. Hong further discloses the user of the electronic device repeatedly performs the same activity a specified number of times or more for a time period of a specified range, obtain the state information associated with the same activity [claim 9].
Claim 4, 9, and 14 are directed to…display the specified time period and the information regarding the user in association with each other on a screen.
Hong discloses provide contents including an association between the state information and the stress index to the display or an external electronic device [claim 5].
Claim 5, 10, and 15 are directed to …specify a first time period, during which the user is in a first stress state, and a second time period during which the user is in a second stress state in which the user is less stressed than in the first stress state.
Hong is discloses wherein the processor is configured to: compare a first stress index at a first time and a second stress index at a second time corresponding to the at least one activity; and provide guide information determined at least based on the comparison result [claim 4].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Bickham whose telephone number (703)756-1817. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8-4.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached on (571)272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1685 /Soren Harward/Primary Examiner, TC 1600