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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] Claim 1 recite:
A stress analysis system comprising:
a sensor device configured to acquire biological information, where in the sensor device comprises an acceleration meter and the biological information indicates movement of a user;
a terminal device; and
a stress analysis apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain the biological information from the sensor device;
extract, from stress information in which a past state of stress of a user and information regarding a past activity of the user are associated with each other, a factor that increases stress in the user,
predict an increase in stress in the user based on an activity schedule of the user and the extracted factor.
Claims 5 and 9:
A stress analysis method comprising:
estimating a stress level based on biological information that is output from a sensor device:
specifying a corresponding activity at a time of estimation of the stress level;
setting an activity variable according to a setting rule for each activity using activity information;
constructing a stress model using the stress level and the corresponding activity variable, the stress model including a plurality of activity variables and a plurality of weight coefficients respectively corresponding to the plurality of activity variables, wherein the plurality of activity variables respectively correspond to a plurality of activities, and the plurality of weight coefficients that correspond to the plurality of activity variables and indicate whether a corresponding activity will increase or decrease stress:
extracting, from stress information in which a past state of stress of a user and information regarding a past activity of the user are associated with each other, a factor that increases stress in the user; and
predicting an increase in stress in the user based on an activity schedule of the user and the extracted factor
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory” [claim 1], and “processor” [claim 1], nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a therapist observing users’ data, performing analysis on said data and predicting stress trigger based on analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Mental Process” or “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “memory” [claim 1], “terminal device” [claim 1] “sensor device” [claims 5 and 9] and “processor” [claim 1],
The “memory”, “terminal device” and “processor” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “ a sensor device configured to acquire biological information, where in the sensor device comprises an acceleration meter and the biological information indicates movement of a user” or “estimating a stress level based on biological information that is output from a sensor device“ are extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. In this particular case, the sensor device appears to be used a data gathering steps. It has been held that use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 20).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-4 and 6-18 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The dependent claims recite no additional limitations. Newly amended claims 13-14, 16-18 appears to be directed to various type of sensors that is used to extract biological data and then used in the estimation process. The examiner takes the position that this limitation appears to be directed to a data-gathering activities (or also known as insignificant extra-soluttion activities) and as such do not meaningfully limit the claim. Claim 15 appears to add more abstract idea by adding additional mental steps of estimating stress level, specifying an activity, setting a variable according to a rule, constructing a stress model and predicting the increase stress in the model. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.a
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that the inclusion of the limitation “a sensor device configured to acquire biological information, wherein the sensor device comprises an acceleration meter and the biological information indicates movement of a user,” and “a terminal device” would overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 since these features are non-generic hardware that would apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the applicant’s own specification appears to allow the interpretation of some of these sensors can be considered to a generic computing device (see paragraph 20-21). These limitations can also be interpreted as extra-solution activity or field of use activity; since these sensors and terminals are meant as a data gathering activity or as the source of the data. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the calculation required in the claim limitations are too complex to be performed as a mental process. However, the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states that when the computer is used as a tool perform then mental process then it would not be sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible abstract idea. For example, the Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/
sPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3715