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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 01/05/2026.
In the amendment dated 01/05/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 6, 12-14 and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15 and 17-20 are currently pending.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
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, 5, 7-11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method, system and a computer-readable medium for stress prediction and management.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative):
building a personalized stress prediction model for a user based on self-reported stress data input from the user during a preset period;
and understanding and managing a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the building of the personalized stress prediction model comprises: collecting the self-reported stress data during the preset period; and building the personalized stress prediction model based on the self-reported stress data, wherein the collecting of the self-reported stress data comprises: providing a stress input notification at a preset time interval during the preset period; the user to input his or her own stress level; and collecting the stress level of the user input through the self-reported stress data, wherein the understanding and the managing of the stress of the user comprises: predicting a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the predicting of the stress of the user comprises: periodically providing stress prediction information that includes a stress level predicted through the personalized stress prediction model; analyzing, using the personalized stress prediction model, an actual stress level input by the user identifying the predicted stress level; and providing a stress analysis report that includes a final stress level predicted from the actual stress level through the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the providing of the stress analysis report comprises: visually highlighting, among a plurality of data categories that have influenced the personalized stress prediction model in predicting the final stress level, a data category corresponding to a key contributing factor to the final stress level; and receiving feedback from the user whether an explanation provided through the visually highlighting is useful, wherein the visually highlighting comprises: displaying a plurality of icons respectively representing the plurality of data categories including use of a cellular phone, a social activity, a location movement, a physical activity, and sleep; and distinctively displaying an icon corresponding to the key contributing factor among the plurality of icons compared to other icons to visually highlight the key contributing factor, wherein the stress analysis report further includes a graphical object representing the final stress level and a text message indicating a specific time range corresponding to the final stress level, and wherein the graphical object, the text message, the plurality of icons, are displayed together in a vertical arrangement order as Crafted, is are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) a computer system, (in claim 11) a computer system comprising a memory and a processor and (in claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a computer system, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the computer system, memory, processor and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, the claims encompass building a personalized stress prediction model and understanding and managing a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior 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.
Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “personalized stress prediction model” encompasses an element that can be executed manually, such as with pen and paper, by a user. For example, a model could be in the form of an equation, formula, or a set of rules applied to the input data. As such, the claims encompass a user manually acquiring self-reported stress data input and applying a model to understand and manage a stress of the user. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. SEE 17/907396
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element of a computer system. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computer system comprising a memory and a processor that implements the identified abstract idea. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a computer system. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer components for performing generic computer functions, see Spec. at page 19 and 20) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 further recite the additional elements of a user terminal, a stress input screen including a first user interface and a second user interface. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to provide/collect/display data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 also recite the additional element of a personalized stress prediction model. This additional element utilizes machine learning algorithms (see Spec. at pages 8-10) and equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer system, memory, processor and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium to perform the noted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user terminal, a stress input screen including a first user interface and a second user interface were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a personalized stress prediction model was determined to be the application of machine learning algorithm to the identified abstract idea. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 5, 7-10, 15 and 17-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 5 and 15 further merely describe(s) building the personalized stress prediction model. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) collecting of the self-reported stress data. Claim(s) 5 and 15 also include the additional element of “smartphone” which is analyzed as a generic computer components and does not provide practical application or significantly more. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 7 and 17 also include the additional element of “a record tag input screen” which is interpreted the same as the stress input screen and cannot provide a practical application or Significantly more. Claim(s) 17 further merely describe(s) provide a stress input screen and collect the stress level of the user input. Claim(s) 8 and 18 further merely describe(s) setting a stress intervention plan. Claim(s) 9, 10 and 19 further merely describe(s) providing and displaying an average stress level. Claims 5, 7-10, 15 and 17-19 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 20.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within claim 2. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: each of the following conditions, using the corresponding method: building a personalized stress prediction model for a user based on self-reported stress data input from the user during a preset period; and understanding and managing a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the building of the personalized stress prediction model comprises: collecting the self-reported stress data during the preset period; and building the personalized stress prediction model based on the self-reported stress data, wherein the collecting of the self-reported stress data comprises: providing a stress input notification at a preset time interval during the preset period to a user terminal of the user; providing, on the user terminal, a stress input screen including a first user interface for the user to input his or her own stress level; and collecting the stress level of the user input through the first user interface as the self- reported stress data, wherein the understanding and the managing of the stress of the user comprises: predicting a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the predicting of the stress of the user comprises: periodically providing, to the user terminal, stress prediction information that includes a stress level predicted through the personalized stress prediction model; analyzing, using the personalized stress prediction model, an actual stress level input by the user identifying the predicted stress level; and providing, to the user terminal, a stress analysis report that includes a final stress level predicted from the actual stress level through the personalized stress prediction model, wherein the providing of the stress analysis report comprises: visually highlighting, among a plurality of data categories that have influenced the personalized stress prediction model in predicting the final stress level, a data category corresponding to a key contributing factor to the final stress level; and providing a second user interface for receiving feedback from the user on whether an explanation provided through the visually highlighting is useful, wherein the visually highlighting comprises: displaying a plurality of icons respectively representing the plurality of data categories including use of a cellular phone, a social activity, a location movement, a physical activity, and sleep; and distinctively displaying an icon corresponding to the key contributing factor among the plurality of icons compared to other icons to visually highlight the key contributing factor, wherein the stress analysis report further includes a graphical object representing the final stress level and a text message indicating a specific time range corresponding to the final stress level, and wherein the graphical object, the text message, the plurality of icons, and the second user interface are displayed together on a single screen of the user terminal in a vertical arrangement order.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding the indefinite rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15 and 17-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
The amended claims, including amended claim 1, clearly define features of a technical implementation that cannot be realized without the use of a computer, thereby going beyond the mere organization of human activity or simple data processing. The additional features, including the features regarding a UI that analyzes causal relationships of data and visually highlights them are all elements that cannot be performed mentally by a human. In addition, the amended independent claims clearly describe technical improvements related to the present invention. The amended independent claims do not merely stop at the abstract idea or mental process of "analyzing and showing stress," but describe technology limited to specific implementation. technology of a graphical user interface (GUI) having specific physical/spatial constraints of vertical arrangement within a single screen. Thus, the amended claims present a technical solution that efficiently utilizes the hardware resource of a computer screen, and thus corresponds to a practical application beyond the mere presentation of information. Applicant notes that the M.P.E.P. recognizes improved user interfaces as improvements to computer technology that are eligible for patenting. (See, e.g., M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)(I).) Furthermore, such a process cannot be practically performed in the human mind and is eligible for patenting. For example, the human mind is not equipped to build the personalized stress prediction model and predict a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model. (See generally July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf.) For at least these reasons, any alleged abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application and are eligible for patenting. Accordingly, the rejections under Section 101 should be withdrawn.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are a processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass building a personalized stress prediction model and understanding and managing a stress of the user using the personalized stress prediction model, which is an abstract idea. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Moreover, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “personalized stress prediction model” encompasses an element that can be executed manually, such as with pen and paper, by a user. For example, a model could be in the form of an equation, formula, or a set of rules applied to the input data. As such, the claims encompass a user manually acquiring self-reported stress data input and applying a model to understand and manage a stress of the user. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. SEE 17/907396.
Moreover, Applicants claims do not improve upon a conventional user interface. The user interface is analyzed as an additional element and is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to collect input, provide feedback and display data) and amount to extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I0 and MPEP 2106.05(A). Also, the specification discloses the use of a conventional user interface, see page 9 that states “a user interface (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) of an application installed on a smartphone of the user may be used” and does not support improvements to a user interface. The Specification at page 2, discusses improvements to the level of awareness for a stress level of a user and may help the user to correctly recognize the stress level of a user, which are not technical improvements. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Colley (US 2015/0182129/ teaches managing chronic stress. Ohnemus (US 20170147775) teaches automated health data acquisition, processing and communication system. Lundin (US 2018/0107962) teaches stress and productivity insights based on computerized data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683