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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicants reply dated 11/28/2025. Claims 1, 17-23, 25, and 27-30 have been amended and claim 16 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claims as amended provide for a practical application of the before identified abstract idea, providing an improvement to the technical field and is analogous to example 47 claim 3. The Examiner disagrees. Example 47 claim 3 was directed towards an artificial neural network to automatically detect malicious network packets, including training the ANN, detecting anomalies, identifying the packets and taking real-time actions. The instant claims are directed towards ranking objects based on user and observed feedback. The Examiner fails to understand how the two are related. Further the Applicant has argued that the claims provide for a non-conventional arrangement by combining machine data (sensor data) and the external observer data to arrive at a ranked order. As below in the revised 103 rejection, The Examiner has provided Hussain et al dated 18 May 2018 that discloses using a mixed method approach of triangulation, which combines user feedback with observed metrics and sensor data to provide for a better UX evaluation method. Therefore it would not be considered to be a non-generic, non-conventional arrangement, and the 101 rejection is maintained and is final.
Regarding the 102/103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections have been considered and are found to be persuasive in part, however, are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
Applicant has argued that there is no motivation to combine the references. The Examiner disagrees as in the previous 103 rejection, however, newly cited Hussain discloses a method of combining sensor, user feedback, and observer data, in order to reduce/remove bias. (Hussain Abstract)
Regarding the 112 rejections:
In view of amendments the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 rejection.
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, 15, and 17-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1, 15, and 17-31 are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 28 recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A sensibility measuring method comprising: measuring, based on a measurement item which corresponds to each of evaluation objects, a set of biological information, the set each derived from a subject while using each of the evaluation objects on a trial basis; and acquiring an evaluation result for each of the evaluation objects, the evaluation result including identification information that enables identification of a rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other, based on the measured set of biological information; wherein the sensibility measuring method further comprises acquiring an evaluation finding obtained by an evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects based on information on a trial use status of each of the evaluation objects by the subject; the evaluation finding is obtained by the evaluator different from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects separately from the set of biological information by observing the subject who is using each of the evaluation objects on the trial basis; and the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result including the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “biological information measuring unit, evaluation result acquirer, evaluation finding acquirer, and a display” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “biological information measuring unit, evaluation result acquirer, evaluation finding acquirer, and a display” the above italicized limitations in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites 4 additional elements – biological information measuring unit, evaluation result acquirer, evaluation finding acquirer, and a display. They are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of biological information measuring unit, evaluation result acquirer, evaluation finding acquirer, and a display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the biological information measuring unit, evaluation result acquirer, evaluation finding acquirer, and a display is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1, 15, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi Simone Augusto "Emotional effects induced by lip balms containing different emollients: neuroscientific approach to studying the tactual experience", H&PC Today - Household and Personal Care Today, vol. 12(3), pages 52-57, 26 May 2017 (2017-05-26), pages 1-6, XP093138828, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.bregaglio.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/art-2.pdf (“Lombardo”), in view of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325266185_A_Multimodal_Deep_Log-Based_User_Experience_UX_Platform_for_UX_Evaluation “Hussain”
In regards to claim 1 and 29, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
A sensibility measuring method comprising: measuring, based on a measurement item which corresponds to each of evaluation objects, a set of biological information, the set each derived from a subject while using each of the evaluation objects on a trial basis; and acquiring an evaluation result for each of the evaluation objects, the evaluation result including identification information that enables identification of a rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other, based on the measured set of biological information. (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph, further Lombardi discloses a portable wireless EEG system to collect measurement items and a computer to process the measurements to produce a result (page 53))
Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
acquiring an evaluation finding obtained by an evaluator different from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects separately from the set of biological information by observing the subject who is using each of the evaluation objects on the trial basis
based on the measured set of biological information and the evaluation finding
The Examiner provides Hussain to teach the following limitations:
acquiring an evaluation finding obtained by an evaluator different from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects separately from the set of biological information by observing the subject who is using each of the evaluation objects on the trial basis; based on the measured set of biological information and the evaluation finding (Hussain teaches a method of improving UX evaluation methods by applying a mixed method approach of triangulation by which biometric sensor data is combined with user feedback such as user submitted data and observer data to arrive at a conclusion. See at least Hussain pages 1-5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Hussain in order to reduce bias (“The platform reduces the subjective bias and validates the user’s perceptions, which are measured by different sensors through objectification of the subjective nature of the user in the UX assessment”) (Hussain Abstract), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 15, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
wherein the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result for each of the evaluation objects, the evaluation result including information indicating the rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other, based on the measured set of biological information. (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data)
In regards to claim 31, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: a display configured to display the evaluation result acquired by the evaluation result acquirer. (Lombardi discloses processing all the data on a laptop computer to produce the evaluation results. see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph, further Lombardi discloses a portable wireless EEG system to collect measurement items and a computer to process the measurements to produce a result (page 53))
Claims 17-18, 20-22, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi Simone Augusto "Emotional effects induced by lip balms containing different emollients: neuroscientific approach to studying the tactual experience", H&PC Today - Household and Personal Care Today, vol. 12(3), pages 52-57, 26 May 2017 (2017-05-26), pages 1-6, XP093138828, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.bregaglio.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/art-2.pdf (“Lombardo”), in view of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325266185_A_Multimodal_Deep_Log-Based_User_Experience_UX_Platform_for_UX_Evaluation “Hussain”, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0350052 A1 to Julkunen (“Julkunen”).
In regards to claim 17, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation finding is obtained by the evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject; and the evaluation result includes the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding.
The Examiner provides Julkunen to teach the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation finding is obtained by the evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject; and the evaluation result includes the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding. (Julkunen discloses a system and method of evaluating an image by which a combination of methods of evaluating the image (such as expert opinions, surveys, brain scanning, focus groups) are used to determine the overall rank of the image. See at least Julkunen ¶ 0073 “obtaining the ranking data of the given reference image based upon at least one of expert opinions and ratings provided for the given reference image, consumer surveys performed for the given reference image, information collected for the given reference image using a brain-scanning method, an image analysis of the given reference image that is performed using a medical device, and/or a performance metric measured for the given reference image, when the given reference image is used in online advertising. In an example, the ranking data is obtained by consumer surveys of focus groups for determining their perception of a theme communicated by a reference image.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Julkunen in order to improve the ranking method by incorporating multiple sources, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 18, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation finding includes character information indicating a finding of an evaluation by the evaluator including an expert on impressions and experiences obtained when a product, a system, or a service is used.
The Examiner provides Julkunen to teach the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation finding includes character information indicating a finding of an evaluation by the evaluator including an expert on impressions and experiences obtained when a product, a system, or a service is used. (Julkunen discloses a system and method of evaluating an image by which a combination of methods of evaluating the image (such as expert opinions, surveys, brain scanning, focus groups) are used to determine the overall rank of the image. See at least Julkunen ¶ 0073 “obtaining the ranking data of the given reference image based upon at least one of expert opinions and ratings provided for the given reference image, consumer surveys performed for the given reference image, information collected for the given reference image using a brain-scanning method, an image analysis of the given reference image that is performed using a medical device, and/or a performance metric measured for the given reference image, when the given reference image is used in online advertising. In an example, the ranking data is obtained by consumer surveys of focus groups for determining their perception of a theme communicated by a reference image.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Julkunen in order to improve the ranking method by incorporating multiple sources, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 20, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation result includes the rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other based on the set of biological information (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph)
Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
and the evaluation finding.
The Examiner provides Julkunen to teach the following limitations:
and the evaluation finding. (Julkunen discloses a system and method of evaluating an image by which a combination of methods of evaluating the image (such as expert opinions, surveys, brain scanning, focus groups) are used to determine the overall rank of the image. See at least Julkunen ¶ 0073 “obtaining the ranking data of the given reference image based upon at least one of expert opinions and ratings provided for the given reference image, consumer surveys performed for the given reference image, information collected for the given reference image using a brain-scanning method, an image analysis of the given reference image that is performed using a medical device, and/or a performance metric measured for the given reference image, when the given reference image is used in online advertising. In an example, the ranking data is obtained by consumer surveys of focus groups for determining their perception of a theme communicated by a reference image.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Julkunen in order to improve the ranking method by incorporating multiple sources, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 21, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
wherein the measuring the set of biological information includes measuring, based on a plurality of the measurement items which correspond to each of the evaluation objects, a plurality of pieces of the biological information corresponding to the plurality of measurement items, respectively; and the sensibility measuring method further comprises displaying each of the plurality of pieces of biological information and the evaluation finding side by side for each of the evaluation objects, and displaying the evaluation result including the identification information that enables the identification of the rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other. (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data and displaying the rank information with the measured data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph)
In regards to claim 22, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
wherein the displaying the evaluation result includes displaying the evaluation result with the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding displayed in a notation based on a common standard. (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data and displaying the rank information with the measured data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph)
In regards to claim 28, Lombardi discloses the following limitations:
A sensibility measuring method comprising: measuring, based on a measurement item which corresponds to each of evaluation objects, a set of biological information, the set each derived from a subject while using each of the evaluation objects on a trial basis; and acquiring an evaluation result for each of the evaluation objects, the evaluation result including identification information that enables identification of a rank order in which the evaluation objects are compared with each other, based on the measured set of biological information; (see at least Lombardi Abstract, Tables 1-3, and Figures 1-4 teach ranking of products (lip balms) taking into account EEG and GSR data, further Lombardi discloses survey’s being acquired (see at least Page 54 “subjects” paragraph)
Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the sensibility measuring method further comprises acquiring an evaluation finding obtained by an evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects based on information on a trial use status of each of the evaluation objects by the subject; and the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result including the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding.
the evaluation finding is obtained by the evaluator different from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects separately from the set of biological information by observing the subject who is using each of the evaluation objects on the trial basis;
The Examiner provides Julkunen to teach the following limitations:
wherein the sensibility measuring method further comprises acquiring an evaluation finding obtained by an evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects based on information on a trial use status of each of the evaluation objects by the subject; and the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result including the measured set of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding. (Julkunen discloses a system and method of evaluating an image by which a combination of methods of evaluating the image (such as expert opinions, surveys, brain scanning, focus groups) are used to determine the overall rank of the image. See at least Julkunen ¶ 0073 “obtaining the ranking data of the given reference image based upon at least one of expert opinions and ratings provided for the given reference image, consumer surveys performed for the given reference image, information collected for the given reference image using a brain-scanning method, an image analysis of the given reference image that is performed using a medical device, and/or a performance metric measured for the given reference image, when the given reference image is used in online advertising. In an example, the ranking data is obtained by consumer surveys of focus groups for determining their perception of a theme communicated by a reference image.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Julkunen in order to improve the ranking method by incorporating multiple sources, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Hussain to teach the following limitations:
the evaluation finding is obtained by the evaluator different from the subject, the evaluator evaluating the evaluation objects separately from the set of biological information by observing the subject who is using each of the evaluation objects on the trial basis; (Hussain teaches a method of improving UX evaluation methods by applying a mixed method approach of triangulation by which biometric sensor data is combined with user feedback such as user submitted data and observer data to arrive at a conclusion. See at least Hussain pages 1-5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Hussain in order to reduce bias (“The platform reduces the subjective bias and validates the user’s perceptions, which are measured by different sensors through objectification of the subjective nature of the user in the UX assessment”) (Hussain Abstract), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 30, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein: the evaluation finding acquirer configured to acquire the evaluation finding obtained by the evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject,; wherein the evaluation result acquirer is configured to acquire the evaluation result including the set of biological information measured by the biological information measuring unit and the evaluation finding acquired by the evaluation finding acquirer.
The Examiner provides Julkunen to teach the following limitations:
wherein: the evaluation finding acquirer configured to acquire the evaluation finding obtained by the evaluator selected to correspond to the evaluation objects separately from the subject; wherein the evaluation result acquirer is configured to acquire the evaluation result including the set of biological information measured by the biological information measuring unit and the evaluation finding acquired by the evaluation finding acquirer. (Julkunen discloses a system and method of evaluating an image by which a combination of methods of evaluating the image (such as expert opinions, surveys, brain scanning, focus groups) are used to determine the overall rank of the image. See at least Julkunen ¶ 0073 “obtaining the ranking data of the given reference image based upon at least one of expert opinions and ratings provided for the given reference image, consumer surveys performed for the given reference image, information collected for the given reference image using a brain-scanning method, an image analysis of the given reference image that is performed using a medical device, and/or a performance metric measured for the given reference image, when the given reference image is used in online advertising. In an example, the ranking data is obtained by consumer surveys of focus groups for determining their perception of a theme communicated by a reference image.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Julkunen in order to improve the ranking method by incorporating multiple sources, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi Simone Augusto "Emotional effects induced by lip balms containing different emollients: neuroscientific approach to studying the tactual experience", H&PC Today - Household and Personal Care Today, vol. 12(3), pages 52-57, 26 May 2017 (2017-05-26), pages 1-6, XP093138828, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.bregaglio.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/art-2.pdf (“Lombardo”), in view of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325266185_A_Multimodal_Deep_Log-Based_User_Experience_UX_Platform_for_UX_Evaluation “Hussain”, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0350052 A1 to Julkunen (“Julkunen”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308909 A1 to Faith (“Faith”)
In regards to claim 23, Lombardi discloses measuring multiple biological inputs (see above citations), however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the measuring the set of biological information includes measuring, based on a plurality of the measurement items which correspond to each of the evaluation objects, a plurality of pieces of the biological information corresponding to the plurality of measurement items, respectively; and the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result in which each of the measured plurality of pieces of biological information has been weighted.
The Examiner provides Faith to teach the following limitations:
wherein the measuring the set of biological information includes measuring, based on a plurality of the measurement items which correspond to each of the evaluation objects, a plurality of pieces of the biological information corresponding to the plurality of measurement items, respectively; and the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result in which each of the measured plurality of pieces of biological information has been weighted. (Faith teaches taking multiple biological inputs about a person such as gaze data, mood data, and other extracted data, weighting the input data, and determining if the person is likely to purchase a product (evaluation result). See at least ¶ 0132)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Faith in order to improve the evaluation result by incorporating multiple biological inputs, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 24, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result in which each of the measured plurality of pieces of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding have been weighted.
The Examiner provides Faith to teach the following limitations:
wherein the acquiring the evaluation result includes acquiring the evaluation result in which each of the measured plurality of pieces of biological information and the acquired evaluation finding have been weighted. (Faith teaches taking multiple biological inputs about a person such as gaze data, mood data, and other extracted data, weighting the input data, and determining if the person is likely to purchase a product (evaluation result). See at least ¶ 0132)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Faith in order to improve the evaluation result by incorporating multiple biological inputs, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 25, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the set of biological information includes at least one of a brain blood flow, a brain wave, a heart rate, or a viewpoint movement of the subject.
The Examiner provides Faith to teach the following limitations:
wherein the set of biological information includes at least one of a brain blood flow, a brain wave, a heart rate, or a viewpoint movement of the subject. (Faith teaches taking multiple biological inputs about a person such as gaze data (viewpoint movement), mood data, and other extracted data, weighting the input data, and determining if the person is likely to purchase a product (evaluation result). See at least ¶ 0132)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Faith in order to improve the evaluation result by incorporating multiple biological inputs, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi Simone Augusto "Emotional effects induced by lip balms containing different emollients: neuroscientific approach to studying the tactual experience", H&PC Today - Household and Personal Care Today, vol. 12(3), pages 52-57, 26 May 2017 (2017-05-26), pages 1-6, XP093138828, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.bregaglio.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/art-2.pdf (“Lombardo”), in view of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325266185_A_Multimodal_Deep_Log-Based_User_Experience_UX_Platform_for_UX_Evaluation “Hussain”, in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 26, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
further comprising: selecting a predetermined combination of measurement items from among a plurality of the measurement items to correspond to each of the evaluation objects before the measuring the set of biological information; wherein the measuring the set of biological information includes measuring, based on the selected combination of the measurement items, a plurality of pieces of the biological information corresponding to the measurement items in the selected combination of the measurement items, respectively.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide a user means to select the type of input or test to run when measuring things, for example using an O-scope, multiple measurements can be performed and displayed at once, and the user is able to select what information to collect for the test being performed. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Official Notice in order to allow the user to specify what inputs to the test is required, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi Simone Augusto "Emotional effects induced by lip balms containing different emollients: neuroscientific approach to studying the tactual experience", H&PC Today - Household and Personal Care Today, vol. 12(3), pages 52-57, 26 May 2017 (2017-05-26), pages 1-6, XP093138828, Retrieved from the Internet: URL: https://www.bregaglio.eu/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/09/art-2.pdf (“Lombardo”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0350052 A1 to Julkunen (“Julkunen”), in view of Official Notice.
In regards to claim 27, Lombardi does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the evaluation finding includes a finding of an evaluation of each of the evaluation objects output based on the measured set of biological information using a trained model generated by machine learning.
However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to train and use machine learning to determine results of behavioral testing, such as customer monitoring in stores to detect if a person is going to purchase an item etc.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of Lombardi the teachings of Official Notice in order to automate the evaluation results, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3627