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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 are amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 1-19 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 13-19), machine (claims 1-12). Accordingly, claims 1-19 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claims include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 13 recite:
Claim 1
A neurophysiologic assessment system for quantitatively assessing psychological safety levels of a participant within an experience and predicting participant behavior during and after the experience, the system comprising:
-an ingestion data hub for receiving heart rhythm data collected from the participant during the experience and processing the heart rhythm data so received to generate clean data;
-a neuroscience processing unit for receiving and analyzing the clean data over a specific time period at predetermined intervals to generate primary metrics;
-a behavior analysis unit for receiving and analyzing the clean data and the primary metrics to generate secondary metrics; and
-a workflow management unit for controlling the ingestion data hub, the neuroscience processing unit, and the behavior analysis unit,
-wherein:
-the ingestion data hub is configured to perform at least one of removing, from the heart rhythm data, illogical information outside of specified thresholds, aligning the heart rhythm data with timing specific to the experience, and calibrating the heart rhythm data according to a type of sensor with which the heart rhythm data has been collected, and
-the neuroscience processing unit is configured to identify heart rhythm patterns associated with oxytocin release in the participant's brain, and
-the neuroscience processing unit is further configured to, after receiving clean data for a threshold time period, generate psychological safety scores for the participant in real time.
Claim 13
A method for quantitatively assessing psychological safety levels of a participant within an experience, the method comprising:
-receiving heart rhythm data collected from the participant during the experience;
-cleaning the heart rhythm data to produce clean data;
-analyzing the clean data over a specific time period at predetermined intervals; and
-generating analysis results including primary metrics,
-wherein:
-cleaning the heart rhythm data comprises at least one of removing, from the heart rhythm data, illogical information outside of specified thresholds, aligning the heart rhythm data with timing specific to the experience, and calibrating the heart rhythm data according to a type of sensor with which the heart rhythm data has been collected, and
-analyzing the clean data comprises
-identifying heart rhythm patterns associated with oxytocin release in the participant's brain, and
-after receiving clean data for a threshold time period, generate psychological safety scores for the participant in real time.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because gathering a user’s heart rhythm information during an experience to analyze is managing personal behavior.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because collecting information, cleaning that information, analyzing the information, and generating an analysis can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A neurophysiologic assessment system for quantitatively assessing psychological safety levels of a participant within an experience and predicting participant behavior during and after the experience (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 29; figure 1), the system comprising:
-an ingestion data hub (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 46, para. 29) for receiving heart rhythm data collected from the participant during the experience and processing the heart rhythm data so received to generate clean data;
-a neuroscience processing unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 47, para. 29) for receiving and analyzing the clean data over a specific time period at predetermined intervals to generate primary metrics;
-a behavior analysis unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 48, para. 29) for receiving and analyzing the clean data and the primary metrics to generate secondary metrics; and
-a workflow management unit for controlling the ingestion data hub, the neuroscience processing unit, and the behavior analysis unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 49, para. 29),
-wherein:
-the ingestion data hub (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 46, para. 29) is configured to perform at least one of removing, from the heart rhythm data, illogical information outside of specified thresholds, aligning the heart rhythm data with timing specific to the experience, and calibrating the heart rhythm data according to a type of sensor with which the heart rhythm data has been collected, and
-the neuroscience processing unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 47, para. 29) is configured to identify heart rhythm patterns associated with oxytocin release in the participant's brain, and
-the neuroscience processing unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1, para. 47, para. 29) is further configured to, after receiving clean data for a threshold time period, generate psychological safety scores for the participant in real time.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2, 14: The claim specifies threshold time, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 3, 16: The claim specifies secondary metrics, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 4: The claim specifies ingestion data hub configured for receiving heart rhythm data, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies a content control unit interfaced with neuroscience processing unit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies content control unit configured for providing experience parameters, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7: The claim specifies neuroscience processing unit and behavior analysis unit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8: The claim specifies neuroscience processing unit, behavior analysis unit, workflow management unit, and ingestion data hub, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9-10: the claim specifies ingestion data hub, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11-12: The claim specifies workflow management unit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies analyzing the clean data to generate secondary metrics, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 17: The claim further comprises a method for receiving heart rhythm data, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 18: The claim further comprises controlling the experience, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 19: The claim specifies generating analysis to occur in real-time to be presented, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Claim 1
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving heart rhythm data, neuroscience processing unit receiving clean data, behavior analysis unit receiving clean data, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 4-12, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 4 (receiving heart rhythm data), 5-6 (control the experience provided), 7 (exchanging metrics), 8 (exchange data therebetween), 9 (providing metrics to participant), 10-12 (receive instructions), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-19
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to Double Patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that no person or persons are involved in the process therefore does not constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Examiner states that the information being collected involves users and managing that user’s data to determine physiological safety, therefore it is “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Applicant argues that the amendments recite functions that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Steps that may be performed in the mind, even if recited as being performed on a computer, are mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting, in holding that the claim recites an abstract idea, that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper”). While certain embodiments of the claim language would be too complex to be performed mentally, there is no evidence of such complexity in the particular claim language that would indicate that the tasks performed within the abstract idea could not be practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing SRI Int' l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Applicant argues that the amendments provide a technological solution. Examiner disagrees. The present invention solves the problem associated with analyzing data, which is not a problem of technical nature, but data analysis problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garriga Calleja et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2023/0104450 – A system for determining a mental state of a user based on acquiring data and extracting information.
Narayan et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2019/0000350 – Teaches a system for diagnosing a user (including cognition) based on monitoring and filtering of information.
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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681