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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
The claims were preliminarily amended on 09 January 2023, wherein:
Claims 1, 10, 11, 17, 26, and 27 are original.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 20-22, 25, 28, 30, and 32 are amended.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 29, 31, and 33-48 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites both “psychophysiological” and “psycho-physiological”. Uniformity is recommended.
The specification recites “RF” multiple times. The first instance of an abbreviation or acronym should be accompanied by the fully written term.
Para. 51 recites “a degree of phycological pressure”. This is construed as a typo as the disclosure is unrelated to algae.
In para. 138, the term “number” in “Max number of score repetition” is missing the letter “n”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Kinect”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The pending claims are inconsistently formatted, which decreases clarity. In particular, the claims with separated multiple limitations (i.e., claims 1, 4, 5, 17, 20, and 21) mix ending each limitation with a semi-colon or a comma. Similarly, claims 16 and 32 each mix commas and semi-colons to separate variants. Additionally, at least claims 7, 22, 28, and 30 lump all of the limitations together instead of beginning each limitation on a new line like at least claims 1 and 17. Uniformity is recommended.
Claims 4 and 20 each recite “a said recovery period” in (ii). This is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 5 and 21 each recite “an intensity and variability values” and “a said recovery period”. These are grammatically incorrect.
Claims 9 and 25 each recite “an (i) average”. This is construed as a typo wherein this language should recite “(i) an average”.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 use the term “the”, “said”, or both “the” and “said”. It is unclear what difference in meaning is imparted with the use of one term as opposed to the other. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “the” and “said” are construed to have the same meaning. If this interpretation is correct, it is recommended to use only one of these terms throughout the claims to aid clarity. In other words, uniformity is recommended. Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 25-28, 30, and 32 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and a product which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions, the program instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor to:
receive, as input, physiological parameters data measured in a human subject in response to an administered test question protocol comprising (a) a plurality of test question segments, each comprising at least one test question, and (b) a recovery period following each of said test question segments,
determine a stress signal associated with said test question protocol, based, at least in part, on one or more states of stress detected in said physiological parameters data, temporally associate values of said stress signal with said plurality of test question segments and said recovery periods, and
calculate, for at least some of said test question segments, a segment psychophysiological response score associated with said responses by said subject, based on an analysis of said temporally associated values of said stress signal.
Independent claim 17 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, as input, physiological parameters data measured in a human subject in response to an administered test question protocol comprising (a) a plurality of test question segments, each comprising at least one test question, and (b) a recovery period following each of said test question segments,
determining a stress signal associated with said test question protocol, based, at least in part, on one or more states of stress detected in said physiological parameters data, temporally associating values of said stress signal with said plurality of test question segments and said recovery periods, and
calculating, for at least some of said test question segments, a segment psychophysiological response score associated with said responses by said subject, based on an analysis of said temporally associated values of said stress signal.
All of the foregoing underlined elements, identified above, amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as they merely describe collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. This also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Lastly, the determining and calculating steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation." This is further evidenced in the specification which recites that the “present disclosure provides for an automated analysis algorithm of a subject’s psychophysiological responses to a test protocol”. See para. 108 of the specification.
The dependent claims, except for claims 16 and 32, amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system comprising at least one hardware processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions, the program instructions executable by the at least one hardware processor (claim 1) and wherein said physiological parameters data are acquired using one or more of: an imaging device, an infrared (IR) sensor; a hyperspectral imaging device; a skin surface temperature sensor; a skin conductance sensor; a respiration sensor; a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) sensor; an electrocardiograph (ECG) sensor; a blood volume pulse (BVP) sensor; a heart rate sensor; a surface electromyography (EMG) sensor; an electroencephalograph (EEG) acquisition sensor; a joint bend sensor; and a muscle activity sensor (claims 16 and 32). Although the claims recite computer components for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality for performing their basic computer functions. This is evidenced by at least Fig. 1 which illustrates the components as non-descript black boxes and Fig. 2-8 which illustrate the claimed invention as a process implemented as a software application. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 40-46, 53, 108, and 148-157 of the published specification which identify that the structural elements are ancillary to the claimed invention. For instance, para. 108 identifies that the claimed invention is focused on an algorithm, in other words a mathematical concept. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the method claims are silent regarding any additional elements actively performing the claimed functions indicating that the entire method is performed by a human, including a human operating the recited additional elements. The claims, both individually and as a whole, do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed receiving and analyzing steps are merely performing the steps of processing data. Furthermore, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these components are disclosed. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that the mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computing device and associated hardware does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 224-26 (2014). The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. For example, the claimed performance of steps is wholly encompassed by the judicial exception as identified in Step 2A, Prong 1 above, as they merely amount to collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. Additionally, the physiological sensing devices claimed in claims 16 and 32, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. For example, the disclosure identifies that the claimed invention is for psychophysiological response analysis, while the claims and disclosure are silent regarding any treatment for a disease or medical condition, let alone a particular treatment for a particular disease or medical condition. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims do not provide a particular machine or improvement thereof, nor effect a particular treatment. Also, as addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. In particular, the method as claimed can be construed as performed entirely by a human. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, transmitting/receiving, storing, outputting data). BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (2016)), Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed 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 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is also evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. The focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Additionally, the physiological sensing devices claimed in claims 16 and 32, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they are directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas), and the claims as a whole do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akmandor et al. (US 2018/0184901, hereinafter referred to as Akmandor).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Akmandor teaches a system (claim 1) and a method (claim 17) comprising:
receiving, as input, physiological parameters data measured in a human subject (Akmandor, Fig. 1, Data Collection from WMSs 12) in response to an administered test question protocol comprising (a) a plurality of test question segments, each comprising at least one test question, and (b) a recovery period following each of said test question segments (Akmandor, Fig. 8 illustrates an administered test question protocol comprising a plurality of test question segments and a recovery period following each of the test question segments.),
determining a stress signal associated with said test question protocol, based, at least in part, on one or more states of stress detected in said physiological parameters data, temporally associating values of said stress signal with said plurality of test question segments and said recovery periods (Akmandor, para. 126, “SoDA enables stress detection in real-time. As shown in FIG. 17, the stress detection stage requires approximately 0.3 s for computing the feature values from WMS data.”), and
calculating, for at least some of said test question segments, a segment psychophysiological response score associated with said responses by said subject, based on an analysis of said temporally associated values of said stress signal (Akmandor, at least para. 111-126 describe this).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Akmandor teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, wherein said analysis comprises calculating at least one of:
(i) a test question protocol stress signal global baseline associated with said subject, based, at least in part, on said values of said stress signal during said baseline period (Akmandor, para. 67 recites the initial step of determining the global baseline.); and
(ii) with respect to each test question segment, a stress signal segment baseline, based, at least in part, on said global baseline and a value of said stress signal during a said recovery period immediately preceding said test question segment (Akmandor, para. 137, “For the stress alleviation stage, the system is compared with the 'no therapy' baseline. For both the 'no therapy' baseline and stress alleviation stages, the same stressors are applied for the same time interval. Since the stress alleviation stage is found to provide faster relief, its effectiveness is verified.” At least this citation implies this limitation.).
Regarding claim 5, Akmandor teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said analysis comprises, with respect to a test question segment of said test question segments, calculating at least one of:
(i) reaction times associated with each of said responses to each of said test questions;
(ii) an intensity value of said stress signal associated with said test question segment, relative to said test question segment baseline (Akmandor, para. 61, “In the presence of a stressor, systolic and diastolic blood pressures deviate from their baseline levels.” para. 69, “stressful task pushes the physiological signals to deviate from their original levels”. Original levels are baseline levels as identified in para. 67 of Akmandor.); and
(iii) an intensity and variability values of said stress signal during a said recovery period immediately following said test question segment, relative to said global baseline, and
wherein said segment psychophysiological response score is based, at least in part, on said calculating (Akmandor, at least para. 111-126 describe this).
Regarding claim 21, Akmandor teaches the method of claim 17, wherein said analysis comprises, with respect to a test question segment of said test question segments, calculating at least one of:
(i) reaction times associated with each of said responses to each of said test questions;
(ii) an intensity value of said stress signal associated with said test question segment, relative to said test question segment baseline (Akmandor, para. 61, “In the presence of a stressor, systolic and diastolic blood pressures deviate from their baseline levels.” para. 69, “stressful task pushes the physiological signals to deviate from their original levels”. Original levels are baseline levels as identified in para. 67 of Akmandor.); and
(iii) an intensity and variability values of said stress signal during a said recovery period immediately following said test question segment, relative to said global baseline.
Regarding claims 14 and 30, Akmandor teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, wherein said states of stress are selected from the group consisting of: neutral stress, cognitive stress, positive emotional stress, and negative emotional stress, and wherein said stress signal is calculated, at least in part, by combining at least one of said detected cognitive stress, positive emotional stress, and negative emotional stress (Akmandor, para. 70-79 describe the stress-inducing activities. The Memory Game induces cognitive stress. At least the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) is known to elicit both positive emotional stress and negative emotional stress.).
Regarding claims 16 and 32, Akmandor teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 17, wherein said physiological parameters data are acquired using one or more of: an imaging device, an infrared (IR) sensor; a hyperspectral imaging device; a skin surface temperature sensor; a skin conductance sensor (Akmandor, para. 38, “GSR”); a respiration sensor (Akmandor, para. 38, “The WMSs may be utilized for… respiration rate”); a peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) sensor (Akmandor, para. 38, “blood oximeter”); an electrocardiograph (ECG) sensor (Akmandor, para. 38, “ECG”); a blood volume pulse (BVP) sensor (Akmandor, para. 58-59 describe a blood oximeter which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as detecting BVP to calculate the oxygen level in the blood.); a heart rate sensor (Akmandor, para. 53, “From the ECG signal, values for various parameters, such as the heart rate (HR)”); a surface electromyography (EMG) sensor (Akmandor, para. 51, “electromyograph (EMG) of trapezius muscles”); an electroencephalograph (EEG) acquisition sensor; a joint bend sensor; and a muscle activity sensor (Akmandor, para. 51, “electromyograph (EMG) of trapezius muscles”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rau et al. (US 2013/0281798) is the primary reference used to reject the claims of the PCT application in the ISA Written Opinion mailed 04 November 2020.
Laken (US 2006/0036153) discloses closely related subject matter in the context of deception detection.
Hersh (US 2007/0254270) also discloses closely related subject matter including using assessment during recovery periods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715