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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “current to a skin conductance signal ;,” and should read --current to a skin conductance signal;--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
Amended claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein values from 0% to 100% are extrapolated from datapoints from either the left or middle column of the following table”. The term “extrapolated” implies a mathematical calculation. Applicant’s original specification discloses the numerical value representing the relaxation stimulus effect that is based on the calculated derivative and/or rate of peaks of the skin conductance interval is assigned a relaxation success index in accordance with values presented in a table (claim 2; spec., pages 10-11), but there is no disclosure of any mathematical operation of “extrapolation” as conventionally understood. Accordingly, the noted limitation of claim 2 constitutes new matter.
The examiner notes amending “wherein values from 0% to 100% are extrapolated from datapoints from either the left or middle column of the following table” to read similarly to --wherein values from 0% to 100% are assigned based on values from either the left or middle column of the following table-- would overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a relaxation stimulus” in lines 1-2 and subsequently in line 3. It is unclear whether the relaxation stimulus of line 3 is intended to be the same.
Claim 12 recites “said step of detecting peaks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as parent claim 1 recites “calculating a rate of peaks…”.
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, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for assessing an effect of a relaxation stimulus, comprising exposing a human to a relaxation stimulus, detecting peaks in a skin conductance signal, analyzing the peaks, determining the effect of the relaxation stimulus based on the analysis, and outputting the result on a display.
The limitations “exposing the human to a relaxation stimulus”, “calculating, using a computer processor, a derivative of a mean skin conductance level…and/or calculating a rate of peaks in the skin conductance level…”, “assigning, using the processor, a numerical value representative of the effect of the relaxation stimulus…”, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind or on paper by hand. That is, other than reciting the method of claim 1 is performed “using a computer processor”, no limitations in the claim elements of claim 1 preclude the steps from practically being performing in the mind or on paper by hand. For example, “exposing the human to a relaxation stimulus” in the context of this claim encompasses the practitioner presenting the human with a relaxing image printout, massage, or verbally or manually produced sound, such as by humming or singing. The limitations “calculating, using a computer processor, a derivative of a mean skin conductance level…and/or calculating a rate of peaks in the skin conductance level…” and “assigning, using the processor, a numerical value representative of the effect of the relaxation stimulus…”, but for the recitation of generic computer elements (i.e., computer processor) in the context of the claim encompasses the practitioner mentally or on paper by hand counting peaks in the signal printout, manually calculating a derivative value, and mentally evaluating the relaxation stimulus effect and assigning a numerical value representative based on the counted peaks and calculated derivative. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand, but for the recitation of a generic computer then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites additional elements including “a signal electrode” and “a measuring electrode” in steps of “measuring…a skin conductance signal…” and “measuring…peaks in the skin conductance signal…”, a “computer processor”, and a “display” in a step of “outputting, on a display, a graphic representation of the effect of the relaxation stimulus”. The signal and measuring electrodes is recited at a high level of generality, thus amounts to mere data gathering for performance of the abstract idea, which has been found by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). The computer processor and display are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer processor performing its generic function of processing data, and as a generic display performing its generic function of displaying information) such that these limitations amount to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The step of “outputting, on a display, a graphic representation…” may be practically performed by hand on paper, such that a user may draw a graphic representation of the effect of the relaxation stimulus. The limitation “display” is claimed at such a high level of generality to encompass a hand-drawn paper graphic representation as well as a generic computer display. This “outputting” step amounts to merely outputting data, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Applicant’s original disclosure provides no indication the computer processor is anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) components, as indicated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030241 (Smith) (“processing unit 206 can be a system or device for analyzing biometric data from sensors. For example, processing unit 206 can be a conventional processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for execution by the processor to use in reducing the electrical signals produced by the sensors to graphs, charts, and other human interpretable representations, [0032]).
Under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. In this instance, the signal and measuring electrodes for data gathering and the display for data outputting were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, thus are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC). Gathering sensor data, especially when disclosed at such a high level of generality as discussed above, has been recognized by the courts as WURC activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and further evidenced by WO 2018/100330 (Nagai) (“[i]t is known that galvanic skin response, conventionally measured by the resistance between two electrodes applied spaced apart to skin, varies with the degree of alertness or relaxation of the subject”, pg. 8, lines 7-9). Merely outputting data on a display, especially when claimed in a general manner such that a user drawing a graphic representation on paper by hand is encompassed, is WURC activity as evidenced by U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0030241 (Smith) (“ display controller 414 may control in the conventional manner a display on the display device…display controller 414 and the I/O controller 418 can be implemented with conventional well known technology” [0047]).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered alone and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2 and 3 include all the limitations of claim 1, thus are directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 further limit steps practically performed in the mind or by hand on paper, thus do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 includes all the limitations of claim 1, thus is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 6 includes “audio data exposed to the human’s hearing sense and optionally visual data exposed to the human’s visual sense”. This limitation, as claimed, encompasses a practitioner vocalizing to the user/”human”, or presenting light via a flashlight, or hand drawings on paper. Thus, claim 6 does not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1, thus is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “measurement equipment”, “signal electrode, “measuring electrode”, “measurement converter”, “a control unit”, and “processor”. As claimed, the “measurement equipment” including the electrodes amounts to mere data gathering, which has been found by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g), as discussed above. The generic computer elements of a “measurement converter”, “control unit”, and “processor”, are claimed at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic functions of processing data), thus amount to not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. When considered alone and in combination, these additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as discussed above, thus do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 10-13 include all the limitations of claim 1, thus are directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 10-13 merely further limit the abstract idea of claim 1, thus do not provide an inventive concept.
Note: Claim 7, as amended, positively requires exposure of the human to a “relaxation stimulus” provided by a wireless application program selected from a meditation app, yoga app, hypnosis app, and relaxational music app, thus amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of claim 1.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus, and recites “a signal electrode and a measuring electrode placed on different portions on the area of the patient’s skin” and “measuring electrode measuring a current in response to the signal electrode providing a current to the skin”. These limitations positively require, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a human body, thus is nonstatutory. The examiner suggests applicant amend the claim to read –a signal electrode and a measuring electrode configured to be placed on different portions on the area of the patient’s skin” and –measuring electrode configured to measure a current in response to the signal electrode providing a current to the skin--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0117110 (Ouwerkerk et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0113723 (Ueyama et al.) and CA 2730404 (Zayfert et al., see attached).
Regarding claim 1, Ouwerkerk teaches a method for assessing an effect of a relaxation stimulus exposed to a human (determine emotional state, [0041; assess data, determined whether user is “healthy tired” or “unhealthy tired”, [0043]; [0078]), the method comprising the steps of:
exposing the human to a relaxation stimulus (light, sound, and/or scent, provided to user; recommendations displayed to user on smartphone: [0024]-[0025]; stimulation provided then user re-assessed, [0027]);
measuring, using a signal electrode (81) and a measuring electrode (82), a skin conductance signal measured at an area of the human’s skin through a time interval ([0047]; measuring, [0052]; [0071]-[0072]; Figure 8);
calculating, using a computer processor (10), a derivative of a mean skin conductance level over the time interval and/or calculating a rate of peaks in the skin conductance level over the time interval (“An epoch as used herein can refer to a time segment, time unit or time period”, [0013]; processing device 10, [0043], [0049]; peaks detected over defined epoch, or time interval, [0052], [0054]; derivative of skin conductance signal detected, [0055]-[0056]);
assigning, using the processor (10), a status representative of the effect of the relaxation stimulus based on the calculated derivative of the mean skin conductance level over the time interval and/or based on the rate of peaks in the skin conductance signal over the time interval (user’s state is classified based on the peak and derivative analysis of skin conductance signal over a time interval, [0043]; [0052]; [0078]); and
outputting, on a display, a graphic representation of the effect of the relaxation stimulus (“sleep preparatory advice” provided to user based on analysis, [0052]).
Ouwerkerk teaches the electrodes are placed “so as to contact the volar side of the wrist” ([0071]), and may be “worn around any other suitable body part, such as the ankle, foot or hand” ([0069]). Ouwerkerk does not expressly state the electrodes are located at an area of the human’s skin on a palmar side of a hand or a plantar side of a foot.
However, Ueyama teaches method for relaxation (abstract), comprising measuring using an electrode a skin conductance signal at an area of a human’s skin on a palmar side of the hand through a time interval ([0092]; [0128]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ouwerkerk such that the electrodes measure the skin conductance at a palmar side of the human’s hand as taught by Ueyama as this location is desirable for accurately measuring skin conductance (Ueyama: [0128]).
Ouwerkerk as modified does not state the status is indicated by an assigned numerical value representative of an effect of the relaxation stimulus.
However, Zayfert teaches a method for providing stimulation to a user (abstract), comprising assigning a numerical value representative of an effect of the stimulation based on sensed skin conductance data (“skin conductance”, pg. 15, paragraph 3; “The mental state metric may be a number or set of numbers”, pg. 15, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Ouwerkerk as modified such that the effect of the relaxation stimulus is indicated by an assigned numerical value as taught by Zayfert because a numerical value and set of letters (i.e., word or words) are substitutable representations as Zayfert teaches “[t]he mental state metric may be a number or set of numbers, a letter grade or set of letters, or any other symbolic representation or set of representations” as long as the desired information is communicated to the user (Zayfert: pg. 15, paragraph 4-pg. 16, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk teaches the time interval is in the range of 10 to 90 minutes ([0020]), but does not explicitly disclose the time interval is in the range 1 to 10 minutes.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time interval of Ouwerkerk to 10 minutes since it has been held that “[in] the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see original specification, pages 8-9 indicating time duration is “typically” between 1 and 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 6, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk teaches the relaxation stimulus exposed to the human includes audio data exposed to the human's hearing sense or visual data exposed to the human's visual sense (light, sound, and/or scent, provided to user; recommendations displayed to user on smartphone: [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk as modified teaches an apparatus for assessing an effect of a relaxation stimulus exposed to a human (Ouwerkerk: determine emotional state, [0041; assess data, determined whether user is “healthy tired” or “unhealthy tired”, [0043]; [0078]), comprising
- measurement equipment (Ouwerkerk: 21) for providing a skin conductance signal measured at an area of the patient's skin (Ouwerkerk: [0047]; [0071]; Figures 1-2) on a palmar side of a hand or a plantar side of a foot (Ueyama: [0128]), the measurement equipment comprising a signal electrode (Ouwerkerk: 81) and a measuring electrode (Ouwerkerk: 82) placed on different positions on the area of the patient’s skin, the measuring electrode measuring a current in response to the signal electrode providing a current to the skin (Ouwerkerk: [0052]; [0071]-[0072]; see discussion for claim 1);
- a measurement converter converting the measured current to a skin conductance signal (Ouwerkerk: [0052]; [0071]-[0072]); and
- a control unit (10), comprising an input receiving the skin conductance signal from the measurement converter, and a processor configured to perform a method as set forth in one of the claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-13 ([0046]; Figures 1-2; see discussion for claim 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk as modified teaches the numerical value representative of the effect of the relaxation stimulus is based on the calculated derivative of the mean skin conductance level and the calculated rate of peaks in the skin conductance level over the time interval (see discussion for claim 1; Ouwerkerk: [0052]-[0056]; Zayfert: pg. 15, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk as modified teaches said step of detecting peaks in the skin conductance signal through said time interval comprises establishing the existence of a valid peak if the skin conductance signal exceeds an absolute limit ([0054])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0117110 (Ouwerkerk et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0113723 (Ueyama et al.) and CA 2730404 (Zayfert et al., see attached) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 107024858 (Xie, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ouwerkerk teaches the system may comprise a wireless terminal executing app(s), and discloses delivery of calming music (smartphone, calming music, [0024]; audio unit, [0025; smartphone with app, [0048]), but does not expressly state the human is exposed to the relaxation stimulus by a wireless terminal which executes an application program, the application program being selected from a meditation app, a yoga app, a hypnosis app and a relaxational music app.
However, Xie teaches a method of providing a relaxation stimulus to a human user (abstract), comprising providing the relaxation stimulus by a wireless terminal which executes an application program, the application program being selected from a meditation app, a yoga app, a hypnosis app and a relaxational music app (“hypnotic music” plays via app on mobile phone: machine translation, pg. 3, paragraph 11-pg. 4, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ouwerkerk as modified wherein the relaxation stimulus is provided by a wireless terminal which executes an application program including a hypnosis app and/or a relaxational music app as taught by Xie in order to assist the user in preparation for sleep to improve relaxation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0117110 (Ouwerkerk et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0113723 (Ueyama et al.) and CA 2730404 (Zayfert et al., see attached) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of WO 2012/140537 (De Vries et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Ouwerkerk in view of Ueyama and Zayfert teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Ouwerkerk as modified teaches a valid peak height may have to exceed a threshold which can be set as 2-10% of a skin conductance level ([0054]), does not quantify the absolute limit, such that the absolute limit is selected from a range between 0.01 µS and 0.020 µS.
However, De Vries teaches a method comprising measuring skin conductance as an indication of stress (abstract), wherein peaks are detected in the skin conductance signal through a time interval by establishing the existence of a valid peak if the skin conductance signal exceeds an absolute limit, wherein the limit is selected from a range between 0.01 µS and 0.020 µS (peak amplitude of smallest peak, thus a “valid peak”, amp2 is less than 0.5 µS, thus exceeds 0.01-0.020 µS, see Figure 5; pg. 10, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ouwerkerk as modified such that the absolute limit is selected from a range between 0.01 µS and 0.020 µS as taught by De Vries in order to accurately identify an “[e]motional event” (De Vries: pg. 10, lines 25-31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 20 February 2026, with respect to the informality objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The objection and rejections of 29 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the present amendments integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as “specific specialized equipment” is required for performance of the method, “a graphic representation is output to a display”, and the amendments provide a technical benefit in making treatment information readily available for providers (arguments, page 4). The examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive. The step of measuring a skin conductance signal using signal and measuring electrodes, as claimed, amount to mere data gathering for performance of the abstract ideas, thus are insignificant extrasolution activity. Gathering biosensor data via electrodes has been recognized by the courts as WURC activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and further evidenced by Nagai, as detailed above. The computer processor is generically claimed at a high level of generality, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, thus cannot provide an inventive concept. The step of outputting a graphic representation on a display is either 1) performable by hand on paper by a user as “display” is claimed at a high level of generality to encompass such an interpretation, and 2) amounts to merely outputting data, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which is additionally recognized as WURC activity evidenced by Smith, as detailed above. Accordingly, the method of claim 1 remains directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 7 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, see detailed remarks above.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5-6, filed 20 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 citing Ouwerkerk have been fully considered and are persuasive, except as noted below. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendments to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ouwerkerk, Ueyama, and Zayfert as these references in combination better teach and/or suggest applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant contends Ouwerkerk does not teach calculating a rate “(peaks/time interval)” through the time interval, but rather discloses calculating a sum of rising edge amplitudes per epoch (arguments, pages 5-6). Ouwerkerk is further alleged to fail to disclose calculating a derivative of a mean skin conductance level over the time interval (arguments, pages 6-7). The examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive. Ouwerkerk teaches a peak detection unit detects peaks in the skin conductance signal, and “the sum of rising edge amplitudes of the detected peaks per epoch” (emphasis added) is calculated (“epoch” = time interval, [0013]; [0052]; [0054]), and recognizes an example wherein “the number of peaks per 30 minutes” is indicative of a user’s state ([0053]). Thus, Ouwerkerk teaches detecting the rate of peaks (i.e., peaks/epoch). Ouwerkerk further teaches a derivative of the skin conductance signal detected over an epoch, in order to determine peak onset, to subsequently determine a peak is valid ([0055]-[0056]).
Applicant contends Ouwerkerk does not teach “determining the effect of the relaxation stimulus based on the calculated rate of peaks through the time interval” (arguments, page 6). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. Ouwerkerk recognizes the effect of the relaxation stimulus (see above; light, sound, and/or scent, provided to user; recommendations displayed to user on smartphone: [0024]-[0025]; stimulation provided then user re-assessed, [0027]) may be determining based on the calculated rate of peaks over the time interval (i.e., number of rising edge amplitudes of peaks/epoch) ([0043]; [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights