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 .
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 September 2025 has been entered.
This action is in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-12 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7-8 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 13-23 are added as new.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 September 2025 was filed after the first action but prior to the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome a 101 rejection, those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised, these rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 112, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, Applicant argues that the claims could not be performed as a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a series of analysis/analyzing, cleaning and data manipulation steps to generate results that given their broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed the same way mentally or manually. The recited additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more. The recited additional elements are merely used as a tool to apply the exception or perform insignificant extra solution activity. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting the solution to be achieved more quickly or efficiently. Merely reciting that steps occur in “real time” does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea by demonstrating integration into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. The description of sensors as being used to capture data is still considered a high level data gathering function that is not sufficient to overcome a 101 rejection.
The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Regarding the 103, Applicant argues that Coleman, Grancharov and Iliffe-Moon fail to teach the quantification of neurologic immersion using heart rhythm data collected from a plurality of participants using sensors during an experience. These arguments are persuasive. The amended claims describe the cleaning as including pairing data from each of the plurality of participants with experience related data, removing illogical information, aligning participant data with event timing within an experience, and calibrating heart rhythm data for a type of sensor, then analyzing that clean data to generate results including a quantification of neurologic immersion extracted from the clean data which is not taught by any of the cited references. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 13 and 21 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. The specification in at least [0038] reiterates the same language as the claim stating “calibrate the incoming data according to the sensor type” which fails to sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function or what/how exactly the data is adjusted or altered. Examiner notes that whether one of ordinary skill int eh art could devise a way to accomplish the function is not relevant to the issue of whether the invention has shown possession of the claimed calibrating function. The specification does not sufficiently identify how the function is performed or how the end result is achieved. Clarification and correction is required.
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, 9, 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 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 “illogical information” in claims 1, 13 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “illogical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what qualifies as illogical information. The specification in at least [0038] recites “illogical information (e.g. heart rate above or below specified thresholds)” this gives an example of what illogical information could be but does not invoke lexicography to specifically define what qualifies as illogical information. Clarification and correction is required.
Claims 1, 13 and 21 recite “calibrating the heart rhythm data…in accordance with a type of sensor”. It is unclear what sort of calibration or calibrating is done to the heart rhythm data in accordance with the sensor type. Is the data changed or manipulated into a unified form? How is the data altered or changed in accordance with the sensor type? It is unclear what is actually occurring by claiming “calibrating” the heart rhythm data. Clarification and correction is required.
Claims 3, 14 and 22 recite the limitation "immersion so quantified" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the immersion so quantified is the quantification of neurologic immersion referenced in independent claim or some other quantified immersion value. Clarification and correction is required.
Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation "the immersion levels" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the immersion levels are referencing the quantification of neurologic immersion in the independent claim or some other level or value of immersion. Clarification and correction is required.
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, 9, and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13 and 21 recite a system, method and media for neurologic immersion assessment comprising cleaning received data including pairing, removing, aligning and calibrating data in order to analyze the data and generate analytic results. These limitations as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. The cleaning received data by pairing, removing, aligning and calibrating data, and analyzing data to provide analytic results including a quantification of immersion and secondary metrics are considered observations and evaluations that could be done the same way mentally or manually with pencil and paper. The claims encompass a user simply performing data analytics in their mind or manually. The concept as a whole also demonstrates certain methods of organizing human activity because analyzing gathered heart rhythm information during an experience to assess immersion can be considered managing personal behavior. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer implemented system including a processor, interface and memory storing executable instructions does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements for a system including a processor, memory and interface, the memory storing executable instructions, the interface receiving data captured in real time from sensors and transmitted to the interface, an ingestion data hub for receiving, and unit for generating results in real time and in situ. The interface, sensors, hub and units for generating results are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission/outputting, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The processor and memory which store executable instructions to perform the steps and control the system are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the cleaning, pairing, removing, aligning, calibrating, and analyzing functions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally links the steps to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the receiving at an interface, capturing using sensors, receiving at a hub from the interface and units for generating results steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs courts decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt and transmission/output of data over a network are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here.
Dependent claims 3-6, 9, 11-12, 14-20 and 22-23 include all of the limitations of the independent claims and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the abstract idea by describing further analyzing, calculating metrics, comparisons, identifications, performing profiling, and analysis, and correlating content with levels. The additional elements recited do not transform the claim into a patent eligible invention but additionally describe insignificant extra solution activity including receiving using a device, units for controlling and adjusting presenting, i.e. outputting/transmission, units in communication, i.e. transmission, providing and adjusting streaming content, i.e. outputting/transmission, an interface for receiving and providing output, receiving content for presentation and set forth a high level recitation of a elements of a computer system that apply the exception and generically tie the claims to a particular technological environment including analyzing at a unit and using a PPG device such as a smart watch, fitness tracker, etc. When reconsidered in step 2B these steps are determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the system components are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs courts decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt and transmission/output of data over a network are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here. These limitations do not meaningfully limit the claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-23 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623