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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 10/16/25 are hereby entered.
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, 6-7, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 6-7, 12-13, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or mathematical concepts and/or claim training/employing machine learning models in a particular technological environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 7, and 13, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] stress management tolerable amount calculation method comprising:
[…]
[receiving data regarding] a biological signal of a subject […];
calculating biometric information based on the biological signal, the biometric information including at least heart rate, skin temperature, electrodermal activity, and acceleration data; and
transmitting the biometric information […]
receiving the biometric information […];
calculating a plurality of short-term stress values representing stress of the subject during a first period by inputting the biometric information of the first period into a first [algorithm];
calculating a plurality of long-term stress values representing stress of the subject during a second period by inputting the biometric information of the second period into a second [algorithm], the second period being longer than and including the first period;
based on one of the calculated plurality of long-term stress values being higher than an immediately preceding long-term stress value, calculating a maximum value among the plurality of short-term stress values calculated before the increase as a short- term stress tolerable amount;
calculating a difference between the calculated short-term stress tolerable amount and a current short-term stress value, among the plurality of short-term stress values, as a short-term stress tolerance remainder;
calculating a long-term stress tolerable amount based on the calculated long-term stress values;
calculating a difference between the calculated long-term stress tolerable amount and a current long-term stress value, among the plurality of long-term stress values, as a long-term stress tolerance remainder;
estimating an event of the subject by calculating acceleration in three-dimensional space for each sampling frequency based on the received acceleration, and comparing statistical values of the calculated acceleration with a predetermined threshold;
transmitting a control signal […] to display the short-term stress tolerance remainder and the long-term stress tolerance remainder […]; and
transmitting a control signal […] to display the plurality of short-term stress values, the plurality of long-term stress values, and the estimated event of the subject in association with each other […].
In regard to Claims 1, 7, and 13, the following limitations are directed to training/employing a machine learning model in a particular technological environment, which has been held by the CAFC to be patent ineligible in decisions such as Recentive Analytics, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
calculating a plurality of short-term stress values representing stress of the subject during a first period by inputting the biometric information of the first period into a first LSTM neural network;
calculating a plurality of long-term stress values representing stress of the subject during a second period by inputting the biometric information of the second period into a second LSTM neural network, the second period being longer than and including the first period;
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or mathematical concepts and/or training/employing machine learning models in a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as a stress tolerable amount calculation apparatus, a wearable device including an optical sensor, computer code embodying Applicant’s abstract idea stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed on a computer processor, and/or employing neural networks, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as a stress tolerable amount calculation apparatus, a wearable device including an optical sensor, computer code embodying Applicant’s abstract idea stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed on a computer processor, and/or employing neural networks, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F4-5 and 19 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; and, e.g., p55 regarding employing neural networks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
526
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
77
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant includes numerous limitations in this excerpt that are not, in fact, identified in the rejection as being part of the alleged abstract idea (e.g., “wearable drive”, “optical sensor”, “stress tolerable amount calculation apparatus). And, to the extent that the remaining limitations are directed to collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis they are directed to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. As well as Applicant’s abstract idea may be characterized as being directed to a method of organizing human activity in term of teaching/training a human being to manage his/her stress more effectively.
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient. Furthermore, “stress management” is not necessarily a technological field considering that it does not necessarily require, e.g., the use of a particular machine and/or the transformation of a particular article. See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in Ultramercial in this regard.
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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 http://pair-direct.gov. 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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715