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 12/8/25 are hereby entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 and 20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each meeting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is not a “plurality of meetings”, or the like, claimed prior but, instead, as single “a meeting”.
Claims 1-18 and 20 claims an apparatus (“[a]n information processing device”) and method steps of using that apparatus (“a microprocessor estimates”, “a display that displays”, “setting panel changes”, “wherein the microprocessor determines”, etc.) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173,05(p)(II).
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 1-20 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 1-20 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 a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claims 1 and 19, 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 recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a method for] determin[ing] a psychological state of a member in a meeting, the [method] comprising:
[…] extract[ing] a predetermined feature amount from a voice corresponding to a speech of the member among voices collected during the meeting by a microphone;
[receiving as data a] setting of an index value for each meeting;
[…] estimate[ing] a psychological state of the member based on the feature amount extracted […]; and
determin[ing] a psychological safety of the member during the meeting by comparing the estimated psychological state with the index value […]
[…] display[ing] the psychological safety […].
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 a method of organizing human activity.
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 computer code stored on a non-transitory computer readable memory and executed on a computer processor and/or a user interface and/or display, 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 computer code stored on a non-transitory computer readable memory and executed on a computer processor and/or a user interface and/or display, 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., F1-3 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20160128617 A1 by Morris et al (“Morris”).
In regard to Claim 1, Morris teaches an information processing device that determines a psychological safety of a member in a meeting, the information processing device comprising:
a voice processor that extracts a predetermined feature amount from a voice corresponding to a speech of the member among voices collected during the meeting by a microphone;
(see, e.g., F4, 425; see, e.g., F1, 145 in regard to “microphone”);
a setting panel…index value…meeting;
(see, e.g., p37 in regard to employing a user interface to receive the input of a “norm” (“index value”));
a microprocessor estimates a psychological state…voice processor; and
(see, e.g., F4, 410);
determines a psychological safety of the member during the meeting by comparing the estimated psychological state with the index value set via the setting panel; and
(see, e.g., F4, 435 and, e.g., p22, 33 and 37 in regard to “index value according to a purpose of the meeting)
a display that displays the psychological safety determined by the microprocessor
(see, e.g., F4, 445).
In regard to Claim 2, Morris teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F4, 405 and 410.
In regard to Claims 3-6, Morris teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p22 and 37.
In regard to Claim 16, Morris teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p33.
In regard to Claim 17, Morris teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F4, 430 and 435.
In regard to Claim 18, Morris teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F4, 440, 445, and 450.
In regard to Claim 19, see rejection of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 7-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris.
In regard to Claims 7-8 and 14, see rejection of Claim 1; F4, 440, 445, and 450 regarding “an outputter”; and, also, Morris teaches one of the context attributes being whether the event is a party or a meeting (“according to a purpose of the meeting”) (see, e.g., p33) as well as teaches the user being able to make inputs in regard to attributes (see, e.g., p53) by employing a user interface;
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the user interface taught by Morris to permit the user to enter whether the event was a party or a meeting, also taught by Morris, in order to provide context for the data analysis.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 under the Mayo test as claiming abstract ideas and without claiming “significantly more”. The Mayo test is a legal test and, as such, the question in regard to making such a rejection is what is the most analogous case law in terms of identifying whether an applicant has claimed patent eligible versus ineligible subject matter. To that end, the 101 rejections made supra cite legal authorities in regard to why the Applicant is alleged to have claimed patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo test.
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. 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.
Applicant also argues that its claimed invention provides a “specific improvement over [sic] prior art system” because it provides a visual display that allows a human being attending a meeting (a “member”) to potentially gauge their “psychological safety” during the meeting. Putting aside that Applicant does not, in fact, claim that the “member” actually views their claimed visual display and nor does Applicant claim that the “member” also understands and potentially acts on the contents of the visual display, such a (potential) improvement to human performance resulting from the viewing of a visual display is not patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test to the extent that it is not a technological improvement. See in this regard, e.g., the CAFC’s decision in Trading Technologies v. IBG (2017-2257; 4/18/19), slip. op., page 9:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments regarding the art rejections are addressed by the updated statements of those rejections made supra, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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