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 .
Priority: the current application has the effective filing date of 12/09/2020 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“arousal state determination unit”
“feedback information generation unit”
“resilience estimation unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 19 and 20, the claim term “optimal arousal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim because “optimal arousal” is situational, and the situation is not clearly defined in the context of the claim. See Claim Interpretation below.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a fluctuation of the arousal state in a predetermined period” is indefinite, it is unclear how “fluctuation” is quantified or measured as disclosed in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a staying status of the arousal state” is indefinite, it is unclear how “staying status” is a scalar value (e.g. degree or time period), or a binary value (e.g. yes, or no) in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “transition frequency” is indefinite, it is unclear as to how to determine said “transition frequency” as drafted in the current claim; and it is further unclear as to whether this is related to “fluctuation” recited in claim 10.
To claims 14-18, the terms “resilience” and “strength of resilience” is not defined. The claims vaguely recite that “resilience” and “strength of resilience” are determined “on a basis of the arousal state” which is not a clear recitation as this limitation loosely ties “resilience” and “strength of resilience” to “arousal states.”
Regarding claims 15-17, the limitation “an accumulation result of the arousal state in a predetermined period” is indefinite, it is unclear what constitutes “accumulation” of arousal state. Further the limitation “distribution status” is also indefinite as it is unclear how “distribution” is measured.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7, as drafted, recites “includes a sympathetic nerve, a ventral vagus nerve, and a dorsal vagus nerve”) to further limit “the autonomic nerve.” However, this neither further limits the structure (i.e. information processing apparatus) nor the processing algorithm (i.e. “arousal state determination unit) recited in the base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The Examiner suggests rephrasing the claim to: detecting activity data from sympathetic nerve, a ventral vagus nerve and a dorsal vagus nerve.
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.
Claim 20 is recited to comprise “a program” having various features that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be entirely embodied in software. According to MPEP 2106 (I), there are four categories of invention: process, machine, article of manufacture, and composition of matter. Therefore, as "software" is neither a category of invention nor a subset of one of the categories it does not represent patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007). As such, the system is directed to software per se and is not directed to a statutory category of invention as described below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step (1): Independent claim 1 and 19 recited an apparatus and a method; and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
To Step 2(a) prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites “to determine which state among hyperarousal, optimal arousal, and hypoarousal an arousal state of a user is in.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a process, as drafted, covers performances that can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Similarly, independent claims 19 and 20, which both recite “determining which state among hyperarousal, optimal arousal, and hypoarousal an arousal state of a user is in; and generating feedback information for the user on a basis of the determined arousal state” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a process, as drafted, covers performances that can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and/or with the aid of pen and paper. The additional feature of generating feedback information also involves mental processes.
Dependent claims 2-18 recite additional features, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted, covers performances that can be wholly performed via additional mental process.
Under Step 2(a) prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
The pending claims recites the additional elements of: “information processing apparatus”, “arousal state determination unit”, “feedback information generation unit”; Currently, these additional features under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers generic computer/processor and software or algorithms. When the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. These additional elements do not practically integrate the judicial exception because these elements do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Under Step 2b: The claims do not include additional elements that have not be3en addressed above; as such the current claims fail to teach elements or combinations of elements which sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; claims 1-20 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter- abstract ideas.
Claim Interpretation
To claims 1-20, the terms “hypoarousal”, “hyperarousal” and “optimal arousal”, these limitations are interpreted in view of the Applicant’s Drawing Figs. 3-6 and Specification [0026-0030]:
[0026] In the Polyvagal theory, three states of "hypoarousal", "hyperarousal", and "optimal arousal" are defined as arousal states of human by the activity of the three types of autonomic nerves the "dorsal vagus nerve", the "sympathetic nerve", and the "ventral vagus nerve" described above.
Furthermore, the following is known in the technology field: hypoarousal is associated with parasympathetic nervous system activity, also known as ‘rest or digest’ state; and hyperarousal is associated with sympathetic nervous system activity, also known as ‘fight or flight’ state. Finally, optimal arousal is interpreted as an arousal state that is optimal or target state for a certain situation, including identifying ‘window of tolerance’.
To claims 14-18, the terms “resilience” and “strength of resilience” are interpreted in view of the Applicant’s Specification [0106-0111] and [0124-0126]:
[0106] The term “resilience” as used herein refers to a force with which a person tries to live flexibly according to a situation without giving up even in a difficult or adverse situation. In the present embodiment, the strength of resilience is defined by a width of a range of “optimal arousal” (the window of tolerance).
Furthermore, ‘resilience’ and ‘strength of resilience’ are interpreted as ability and or tolerance to manage stress/trauma.
Note: The above interpretation is taught in Rabin et al. US 2020/0215296 Description of the Related Art, and according to attached NPL documents.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rabin et al. US 2020/0215296 A1 (hereinafter “Rabin”).
Regarding claim 1, Rabin discloses an information processing apparatus (Abstract: systems and method, system as shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
an arousal state determination unit (processor 505, also see [0248-0252] regarding processor and software) configured to determine which state among hyperarousal, optimal arousal, and hypoarousal an arousal state of a user is in ([0015] detecting a state of at least hyperarousal or hypoarousal based on sensed data; [0150] “The input of the hyperarousal disorder may be obtained with a user interface in communication with a processor. Alternatively, input of the hyperarousal disorder may be obtained through sensed data or third party data.” Also see [0123] discuss determining current state or goal state using biometric data and sensed physiological data; it is the Examiner’s position that detecting for “target state.” [0013, 0134-0145] discusses detecting patient specific sensory thresholds, and/or baselines, associated with stressed or arousal states which are identified using detected amount deviation or fluctuations from said identified thresholds/baselines).
Regarding claim 2, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the arousal state determination unit determines the arousal state by calculating an arousal state level indicating the arousal state. (See rejection to claim 1, detected amount of deviation or fluctuation with respect to identified patient specific threshold/baseline is interpreted as “arousal state level” in this claim; especially see [0142] “Depending on the magnitude of the deviation from baseline, an appropriate transcutaneous vibratory output given the user's current state may be selected…”)
Regarding claim 3, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the arousal state determination unit calculates the arousal state level on a basis of an activity degree of autonomic nerve of the user. ([0008] “…a method and apparatus for affecting a subject's health or condition by using information regarding the sympathetic and/or parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system”; [0072] “Physiological sensors may measure ECG, temperature, heart rate, heart rate variability (e.g. which is a proxy for autonomic nervous system tone and emotion regulation capability)”; [0142-0145] detecting fluctuation and/or deviation magnitude)
Regarding claim 4, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the autonomic nerve includes a sympathetic nerve, a ventral vagus nerve, and a dorsal vagus nerve. (See rejection to claim 3, and [0008, 0072] citations, also see [0172] detecting activity of autonomic nervous system over time)
Regarding claim 5, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the activity degree is a value obtained by scoring at least any of physiological index data, subjective index data, and behavioral index data of the user. ([0123] health index, aggregated grom health-related measures; [0127] “…if sensors indicate stress (e.g. based on a health index)…”; [0134] “…calibration may comprise establishing characteristics of a baseline, non-stressed state and a health index, or signatures of various non-baseline states…”)
Regarding claim 6, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the physiological index data includes at least any of a sensing result of each of utterance voice, a posture, a line-of-sight, expression, a brain wave, a saliva component, a hormone, and a vital sign of the user. ([0024] microphone to detect utterance; [0226, 0140] EEG/ brain wave data, brain activity, heart rate, blood pressure, and motion)
Regarding claim 7, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the subjective index data includes at least any of a personality analysis result and a psychological test result for the user. ([0009] “…The sensory threshold may be determined via a calibration procedure, active data collection via survey questions, or passive data collection via monitoring mobile device and application usage.” And [0107: last sentence] and [0145: 1st sentence] mentions survey questions to determine patient-specific thresholds, this is taken to encompass “personality analysis result and a psychological test result” in this claim. Alternatively, calibration test discussed in [0145] is also interpreted as “personality analysis result and a psychological test result” in this claim)
Regarding claim 8, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the behavioral index data includes at least any of an analysis result of each of a motion, expression, a line-of-sight, and an utterance content of the user. ([0024] microphone to detect utterance; [0072] facial expressions and motion detections)
Regarding claim 9, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a feedback information generation unit (stimulation device 102) configured to generate feedback information for the user on a basis of the determined arousal state ([0022, 0119-0120] output stimulation to cause the user to reach a target state, e.g. a target/ideal arousal state, relaxation etc. [0200] stimulation to improve parasympathetic nervous system).
Regarding claim 10, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the arousal state determination unit determines the arousal state in time series ([0104] time period; [0138] “The assessments over the course of a period of time, such as the first week of use, may be used to determine a user's baseline state.”), and the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information in accordance with a fluctuation of the arousal state in a predetermined period. ([0121] “if the data collected by the sensor device indicates that the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems has improved over a period of time but is not yet at the optimal level, the primary frequency may be tapered gradually rather than an immediate shut off.”)
Regarding claim 11, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information in accordance with a staying status of the arousal state in the hyperarousal or the hypoarousal. (See 35 USC 112(b) rejection, in here “staying status” is interpreted as time duration associated with an arousal state. See [0121] “if the data collected by the sensor device indicates that the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems has improved over a period of time but is not yet at the optimal level, the primary frequency may be tapered gradually rather than an immediate shut off.”)
Regarding claim 12, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information in accordance with a transition frequency of the arousal state between the hyperarousal and the hypoarousal. (See 35 USC 112(b) rejection, in here “transition frequency” is interpreted as the amount of times between the arousal states. See [0119, 0121, 0168, 0189] discusses stimulation causes increase and/or decrease of symptoms associated with hypoarousal or hyperarousal nervous system activity)
Regarding claim 13, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information for guiding the arousal state of the user to the optimal arousal. (“optical arousal” is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) indefiniteness, it is interpreted as target state as discussed in Rabin [0119] “The stimulation device 102 and/or associated application may be programmed to deliver stimulation whose parameters are selected to cause a user to reach a target state (e.g. arousal…”)
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claim 20 immediately below. Also see Rabin [0248, 0252] regarding machine and computer software.
Regarding claim 20, Rabin discloses a program ([0248, 0252] method implemented by computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor) for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
determining which state among hyperarousal, optimal arousal, and hypoarousal an arousal state of a user is in ([0015] detecting a state of at least hyperarousal or hypoarousal based on sensed data; [0150] “The input of the hyperarousal disorder may be obtained with a user interface in communication with a processor. Alternatively, input of the hyperarousal disorder may be obtained through sensed data or third party data.” Also see [0123] discuss determining current state or goal state using biometric data and sensed physiological data; it is the Examiner’s position that detecting for “target state”); and
generating feedback information for the user on a basis of the determined arousal state ([0119-0120] output stimulation to cause the user to reach a target state, e.g. a target/ideal arousal state, relaxation etc.).
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 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabin as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Chu et al. US 2019/0232047 A1 (hereinafter “Chu”).
Regarding claim 14, Rabin discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein sensor data is used to detect parasympathetic and sympathetic activities or imbalance ([0074, 0123-0124]), and wherein the feedback information generation unit (stimulation device 120) that “works by increasing the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic components of the autonomic nervous system, which is required for optimal functioning of the human body” ([0196], also see [0200]). Rabin does not explicitly disclose a resilience estimation unit configured to estimate strength of resilience of the user on a basis of the arousal state, wherein the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information on a basis of the estimated strength of resilience.
However, it is the Examiner’s understanding that a balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic components as discussed resembles ‘resilience’ or tolerance zone or window against stressors or anxiety. Accordingly, Rabin’s teaching of reaching a target state, which is a balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic components, is sufficient to amount to “the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information on a basis of the estimated strength of resilience” as recited in the claim.
Alternatively, Chu, is a prior art reference in the analogous art of system, methods and devices that provide for stimulation of nerves to elicit particular desired responses (Abstract), including modulating psychophysiological arousal ([0452: last sentence] and [0458] arousal levels). Chu states “[e]nhanced interoception through nerve stimulation may provide for improving resilience and symptoms of common stress-related disorders such as insomnia, reduced anxieties including, performance anxiety, social anxiety, fear, PTSD, and ADHD.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Rabin, so as utilize sensed data for estimating strength of resilience of the user, and then providing stimulation to improve resilience, as taught in Chu. The motivation for doing so is to reach the stimulation/therapeutic goal of a health balance of between the sympathetic and parasympathetic components also known as tolerance zone or window (Rabin: [0220] and [0053] “…achieving and maintaining any one state, recovering from states, or being resilient to certain states, such as stress”).
Regarding claim 15, Rabin modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the resilience estimation unit estimates the strength of resilience on a basis of an accumulation result of the arousal state in a predetermined period. (See rejection to claim 14, also Rabin [0121] “The dynamic nature may be induced based on data collected by the sensor device 118, based on user feedback, and/or automatically. For example, if the data collected by the sensor device indicates that the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems has improved over a period of time but is not yet at the optimal level, the primary frequency may be tapered gradually rather than an immediate shut off.”)
Regarding claim 16, Rabin modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the resilience estimation unit estimates the strength of resilience from a threshold value of classification of the arousal state as the accumulation result. (See rejection to claim 14, also Rabin: [0027] sensory threshold associated with arousal states)
Regarding claim 17, Rabin modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the resilience estimation unit estimates the strength of resilience from a distribution status of the arousal state as the accumulation result. (See rejection to claim 14, also Rabin: [0123] discuss determining current state or goal state using biometric data and sensed physiological data; it is the Examiner’s position that detecting for “target state.” [0013, 0134-0145] discusses detecting patient specific sensory thresholds, and/or baselines, associated with stressed or arousal states which are identified using detected amount deviation or fluctuations from said identified thresholds/baselines)
Regarding claim 18, Rabin modified teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the feedback information generation unit generates the feedback information for improving the strength of resilience. (See rejection to claim 14 above, and Rabin: [0220] and [0053] “…achieving and maintaining any one state, recovering from states, or being resilient to certain states, such as stress”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Buczynski, R. "How to Help Your Clients Understand Their Window of Tolerance [Infographic]." 2017. < https://www.nicabm.com/trauma-how-to-help-your-clients-understand-their-window-of-tolerance/ > accessed on 09/29/2025
“Hypoarousal Vs. Hyperarousal: How To Recognize Your Nervous System State”
<https://neurodivergentinsights.com/hypoarousal-hyperarousal/?srsltid=AfmBOooqzxaF_tvm6L-61Y7DY5_t20ti4h4uuCRl7_3qZCgN1NmZW5yw>
accessed on 09/29/2025
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
September 29, 2025