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
This Final action is in reply to the amendments filed on 17 April 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 13-14, 18, and 21-22 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7-8 and 10 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections previously raised, those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101, Applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind because the claims recite real time synchronization of asynchronous hear rhythm data streams and that the human mind is not equipped to simultaneously receive, filter and align electronic, real time biometric data streams from multiple sensors across multiple users. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claims, the claims do not recite real time synchronization of data streams nor do they recite simultaneous execution of receiving, filtering and aligning functions. The claims merely recite receiving heart rhythm data and describe that it is captured in real time during an experience using sensors. The claims do not actively recite a real time gathering or capturing process, this occurs outside of the scope of the claims. Additionally, the sensors themselves are not part of the system, they are merely described as a source of data that is transmitted to and received by the system. Further still, merely describing that a gathering or capturing process occurs in “real time” is not sufficient to integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more. Relying on a computer to execute tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the concept into a practical application by providing a specific technical improvement over prior systems because prior systems, such as eye tracking or medical grade EEGs, suffered from high data loss and required stringently controlled laboratory settings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not realize a technical improvement to the data gathering process that suffered from high data loss and required stringently controlled laboratory settings. The data gathering or sensor functionality occurs outside of the scope of the claimed invention. The instant application does not detail or establish any sort of continuous or ongoing data gathering process that is implemented through a specific non-conventional arrangement of conventional elements. Instead the claimed invention merely receives transmitted data, while the gathering process itself is unspecified and occurs outside of the scope of the claimed invention. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed invention and arguments are merely a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the claim improves technology.
Applicant argues that the claims solve this technical problem and provide “significantly more” by providing a specific system architecture for in situ collection, which is more than conventional data collection and analysis systems, and that the architecture cleans the incoming data to remove illogical information and aligns the asynchronous data streams with specific event timing for multi participant alignment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. No specific architecture is claimed beyond the general description of a computing system including a processor, memory and input/output interface that performs the claim operations at a hub and by processing units. The use of the computer and additional elements in a generalized fashion, as is done in the instant application, to increase efficiency 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 methodology to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing data cleaning, analyses and calculations, as is the case here.
The 101 rejections are respectfully maintained below.
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, and aligning 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, and aligning data, then 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, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights