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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to rejection of the claims 1-14 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on page 7, the applicant argues that he pending claims cannot be directed to any abstract idea category because it recites limitations toward “apparatus”, “memory”, “acquire subject information [] pertaining to the action taken by the subject [] calculate a score pertaining to an appropriateness of stress”, “display to display an image”, etc. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The pending claim is directed to an abstract idea because a person(s) trained in assessing stress can monitor the user with respect to the persons environment and/or actions and determine/calculate which environment and/or actions impact the stress of the user in a positive or negative way. The additional elements (e.g., “apparatus”, “memory”, “display”) are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations are therefore mere extra-solution activity. The limitations further do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The limitation of “displaying an image in which […]” is best understood as outputting the result of an abstract idea. The system does not provide any specific treatment or specific action that would result based on the calculations above.
On page 9, the applicant argues that the claimed features enable the estimation accuracy and an improvement. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. In order to have a technological improvement, the additional elements need to be improved. Here, the suggested improvement is in the abstract idea. The actual apparatus, memory, display, etc., are not being improved to run faster, save battery, etc.
Applicant's arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to rejection of the claims 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat Pub No. 20120289788 to Jain et al. (previously presented”) in view of US Pat Pub No 20140206946 granted to Kim et al.
Applicant's arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-12 and 14 recite an apparatus, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 13 recites a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 13 and 14 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “calculate a score pertaining to an appropriateness of stress experienced by the subject as a positive score or a negative score for each of the action and/or the environment”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper and organizing human activity. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 13 and 14 recite the additional limitations of “apparatus”, “memory”, “processing circuit”, “acquire subject information”, “display to display image…”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data gathering/processing and are extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “acquires biometric information”, “display”, “loudspeaker”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over single reference US Pat Pub No. 20120289788 to Jain et al. (hereinafter “Jain”) in view of US Pat Pub No 20140206946 granted to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claims 1, 13-14. Jain discloses a stress score calculation apparatus, comprising: a memory that stores reference information which includes a reference value and/or a reference range pertaining to an action taken by a subject and/or a condition of an environment in which the subject is located that causes the subject an appropriate level of stress (para 0142, 0148 “baseline model”) and a processing circuit (para 0025-0026, 0142, etc., analysis system) configured to: acquire subject information which includes at least one of action information pertaining to the action taken by the subject and environment information pertaining to the environment in which the subject is located (para 0025 “behavioral” and “environmental monitoring”); and calculate a score pertaining to an appropriateness of stress experienced by the subject, based on a comparison between the subject information and the reference information (para 0142, 0148 “continuously monitor the subject and identify deviations, variability, or changes in the data streams as compared to the baseline model”).
Jain fails to disclose calculating a score [] as a positive score or a negative score for each of the action and/or the environment and cause a display to display image in which the positive score and the negative score are arranged on one side and another side, respectively, with respect to a reference line.
Kim, from a similar field of endeavor teaches an apparatus and method for measuring stress having an event detection determination unit that detects the event occurring around the user while assessing the stress such that when a stress level increases/decreases from a threshold level, the event detection determination unit detects the event associated with the ‘stress cause’ / ‘stress solution’ during the interval in which the stress level increased/decreased. Kim teaches providing an output unit to output the stress level and the event that is the cause/solution to the change in stress (para 0014-0015, 0053-0056, fig. 7). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Jain with the teachings of Kim to provide the predictable result of determining the events which cause and/or provide solution to the stress of the user.
Regarding “image in which the positive score and the negative score are arranged on one side and another side, respectively, with respect to a reference line.” It is understood that Kim’s fig 7 to read over the claimed limitation wherein the “positive score” and “negative score” are the increase and decrease in the stress level as graphed, and the “reference line” is the line drawn at the peak of the stress. Furthermore, it is noted that the claim as written does not provide any limitations on the display device. As such, the details of the image are considered to be mere design choice by the applicant. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 2, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the action is sunbathing, exercise, a meal, use of an electronic device, a meeting, a nap, and/or a break, and wherein the action information is a content, amount, acceleration, time, time zone, and a count and/or frequency of the action taken by the subject (para 0057, 0064, etc., 0229 discusses various activity inputted with a time).
Regarding claim 3, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the environment information is a temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure and/or solar radiation amount of the environment in which the subject is located (para 0043).
Regarding claim 4, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the score by adding the positive score (as taught by Kim) indicating that a degree of stress experienced by the subject is appropriate in a case where the subject information satisfies the reference information, and adding the negative score (as taught by Kim) indicating that a degree of stress experienced by the subject is not appropriate in a case where the subject information does not satisfy the reference information (para 0037 “display system render, visualize, display, message, and publish to one or more users based on the one or more analysis outputs”, para 0161-0166 “grading stress”; See Kim’s fig. 7, “appropriate” or “not appropriate” is considered to be any value that shows an increase/decrease in stress as compared to the threshold.”).
Regarding claim 5, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit further acquires biometric information pertaining to bodily processes of the subject, wherein the processing circuit calculates a feature amount pertaining to a stress reaction of the subject, based on the biometric information, and wherein the processing circuit calculates the score also based on the feature amount (para 0043, 0142 “system to contextualize and correlate physiological, psychological, behavioral and environmental data streams to diagnose and monitor stress in a user”).
Regarding claim 6, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the biometric information is a pulse wave, a pulse rate, a heart rate, an amount of sweating, an amount of urine, and/or an amount of saliva, and wherein the feature amount is an LF/HF value, an LFvalue, an HF value, an ULF value, a VLF value, a total power value, an LF correction value, an HF correction value, an average HR value, an SDNN value, an RMSSD value, a CVRR value, an NN50 value, a pNN50 value, an aLF value, a pPA value, a CV-PI value, a Lorenz plot, and/or a recurrent plot (para 0140, 0142, etc., “heart rate”, para 0129-0130 “average measurement” 0169 “heart rate variability”).
Regarding claim 7, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the score by adding the positive score indicating that a degree of stress experienced by the subject is appropriate in a case where the feature amount is less than or equal to a threshold value or lies within a predetermined range, and adding the negative score indicating that a degree of stress experienced by the subject is not appropriate in a case where the feature amount exceeds the threshold value or lies outside the predetermined range (para 0037 “display system render, visualize, display, message, and publish to one or more users based on the one or more analysis outputs”, para 0161-0166 “grading stress”; See Kim’s fig. 7, “appropriate” or “not appropriate” is considered to be any value that shows an increase/decrease in stress as compared to the threshold.”).
Regarding claim 8, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory stores the score each time the score is calculated, and wherein the processing circuit calculates a statistic pertaining to each of the stored scores (para 0036, 0075, 0089 “data logging”).
Regarding claim 9, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the statistic is an average value, a total value, a minimum value, a maximum value, a median value, a deviation value, a mode value, a range, a variance, a standard deviation, a skewness, and/or kurtosis (para 0159-0161 “stress level [] over time to valuing and quantifying stress, [] grade the stress level of a person on a 0-to-4 Liker scale”, para 0162-0167).
Regarding claim 10, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuit performs control to display the stored scores and/or the stored statistics on the display (para 0314 “display”).
Regarding claim 11, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processing circuit performs control to cause the display to display the scores stored in a first predetermined period and an average value and/or a total value of the scores, and display the scores stored in a second predetermined period included in the first predetermined period and an average value and/or a total value of the scores (para 0314 “display system”; it is understood that the display is capable of displaying any/all the results as calculated).
Regarding claim 12, Jain as modified by Kim renders obvious the stress score calculation apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuit performs control to cause a display and/or a loudspeaker to issue an alert in a case where the stored scores and/or the stored statistics satisfy a predetermined criterion (para 0162-0166, 0403 “alerts”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200368488 granted to Sato et al.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796