DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 01/08/2026. Claims 1-8, and 14-28 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, 14 and 21 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/04/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the restriction requirement of the claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: to make clear the claimed invention, the applicant is suggested to amend claims 1 and 21 in the manner below.
At lines 4-7 of claim 1 and lines 7-11 of claim 21, replace “… occur; and a user stress profile indicating a type of stress trigger associated with a user; and causing, based on a comparison of the stress event schedule and the type of stress trigger associated with the user, and during output of the content item to the user:” with:
- … occur; [and] a user stress profile indicating a type of stress trigger associated with a user; [and] causing, based on a comparison of the stress event schedule and the type of stress trigger associated with the user, and during output of the content item to the user[:],-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8 and 14-28 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.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-8 and 14-28 are directed to a method, and thus fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04).
Regarding claim 1, said claim recites a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the use of a generic computing device.
For example, under the BRI, claim 1 could be performed by:
Receiving [, by a computing device,] a stress event schedule indicating portions of a content item in which stress events occur (e.g., a person, looking at a graphical drawing depicted on the screen of a mobile device or on a sheet of paper, can mentally interpret portions of the drawing to include a time when certain events may happen);
a user stress profile indicating a type of stress trigger associated with a user (e.g., the person interpreting the drawing is reading a note written on a piece of paper associate the characteristic of certain event with a specific person);
causing, based on a comparison of the stress event schedule and the type of stress trigger associated with the user, and during output of the content item to the user, output of a message indicating that a stress triggering scene has been detected in the content item (e.g., the person, while visually interpreting and comparing the drawing and the note written on the paper, uses the touch screen of the mobile device to input a text that automatically generates a response via a text message); and
modified output, of the content item, based on the detected stress triggering scene (e.g., a person can annotate the replied message to include a modified version of the drawing to illustrate both the graphical drawing and the text message for further visual evaluation).
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application, because claim 1 only recites a computing device as the additional element. However, the addition does not integrate the exception into the practical application because it is merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). The use of a computing device, as claimed, appears to be mere tangential addition to the abstract idea(s) and amount to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim in that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Accordingly, the additional element of using a computing device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the invention.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an invention concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because the computing device (as the additional element) is merely incidental or token addition to the claims. By merely providing an output of the recited mental process via a computing device, as cited in the claims, does not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are being performed. Therefore, the computing device is construed as insignificant extra-solution activity limitation that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental processes beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). a computing device, such as a mobile phone, tablet or smart watch is a well-known commodity nowadays for everyday use. Likewise, using a computing device for data visualization based on context is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. Thus, it does not qualify as inventive concept.
As such, it is submitted that claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 2-8 further narrow the claimed abstract ideas by further defining certain processing procedurals that a user can do using the touchscreen of a mobile device to input/interact with and apply certain modifications on the graphical drawing depicting the events to occur, according to the preference of the user.
Independent claim 14 is a method claim that recites features that are substantially similar in context and scope to those features of claim 1. Thus, method claim 14, while it falls within a statutory category, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is construed to cover performances of gathering and organizing of human activities, such as managing personal behaviors and apply certain modifications to a graphical drawing representing a timeline for certain events to occur, but for the recitation of a computing device encompassing a storage, keyboard and display.
In the context of claim 14, these additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the claim, as they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the invention.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, they do not recite a judicial exception that is integrated into a practical application, because a memory, keyboard and display are inherent to the computing device and thus, are merely incidental or token additions to the claim. They do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are being performed, because they are insignificant extra-solution activity limitation that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental processes beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, they do not qualify as inventive concepts, even when they are utilized together.
As such, it is submitted that claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 14-20, like claims 2-8, fail to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 14 above. As claimed, they merely further detail the claimed elements shown above to be abstract and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to claims 2-8 and the parent claim above and incorporated herein.
Independent claim 21 is an apparatus claim that recites features that are substantially same with those of claim 1, but the invention category. Claim 21, while it falls within a statutory category, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is construed to cover performances of gathering and organizing of human activities, such as managing personal behaviors via visual comparison of data items depicting a graph illustrating a timeline for certain events to occur, but for the recitation of a processor, a memory and display as the additional elements.
However, these additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the claim, as they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the invention.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, they do not recite a judicial exception that is integrated into a practical application, because a memory, processor and display are inherent to using a computing device and thus, are merely incidental or token additions to the claim. They do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are being performed, because they are insignificant extra-solution activity limitation that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental processes beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, they do not qualify as inventive concepts, even when they are utilized together.
As such, it is submitted that claim 21 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 22-28, like claims 2-8, fail to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 above. As claimed, they merely further detail the claimed elements shown above to be abstract and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to claims 2-8 and the parent claim 21 above and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-8 and 14-28 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.
The features of claim 1 render the claimed limitations indefinite, because the phrases "stress trigger" and “stress events”, as cited in the claim, are broadly vague, in that they fail to make clear the claimed invention. The meaning of the term "stress" may change depending on context and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim, in light of what the applicant regards as the invention. As such, the reader is left in doubt as to the technical features defined by the claim.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets both the "stress trigger" and “stress events” to refer to any occurrences, actions, events or commands that are being executed by a processing device.
As per claim 4, the limitation reciting: “replacing the detected stress triggering scene with calming content” renders the claimed limitation indefinite, because the phrase "calming content" does not make clear the claimed invention. The meaning of the term "calming" may change depending on context and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim, in light of what the applicant regards as the invention. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim is lacking herein.
In addition, claim 4 recites the limitation “information indicating a resource for dealing with the stress triggering scene” renders the claimed limitation indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is being encompassed by “resource for dealing”. the phrase "resource" is broadly vague and may change depending on context. Said phrase does not clearly limit the scope of the claim, in light of what the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 4.
For examination purposes, the Examiner broadly interprets the above stated phrases to encompass any information that is associated with an event or act being executed by a processing device.
As per claim 8, the limitation reciting: “information indicating different remedies for different severities of a type of stress trigger event.” renders the claimed limitation indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is being encompassed by the claimed invention. The terms "remedies" and “severities” are broadly vague and don’t have clear-cut definition in the field of invention. The meaning of the terms may change depending on context and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim, in light of what the applicant regards as the invention. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are lacking.
Claims 14 and 21 are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 17, 18, 24 and 25 and 27 are indefinite for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 28 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 8.
The claims not specifically cited in this rejection are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims
As per claim 22, the limitation reciting: "similar color conversion information…" renders the claim indefinite, because the term “similar” is vague and does not make clear the claimed invention and the technical problem being solved by the additional features of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
(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.
10. Claims 1-8, and 14-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a2) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US 20230419999).
Considering claim 1, Newman is broadly interpreted to disclose a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (e.g., via client device 135 and/or a video server 140), a stress event schedule indicating portions of a content item in which stress events occur (e.g., Newman discloses: Metadata for one or more videos may be obtained and the metadata may include a video summary based on rankings and time stamps representing capture times for the one or more videos. See paras. 3-6 and 23-25 and 28-30); and
a user stress profile indicating a type of stress trigger associated with a user (e.g., Newman discloses: The metadata for the one or more videos may include a video summary based on rankings of events of interest associated with a user. See paras. 3-6 and 25-26. In addition, Newman discloses the video server 140 creates a user account with information stored in the user store 305, wherein the user account can include a unique identifier associating types of videos uploaded by the user. See paras. 39-41);
causing, based on a comparison of the stress event schedule and the type of stress trigger associated with the user, and during output of the content item to the user:
output of a message indicating that a stress triggering scene has been detected in the content item (e.g., Newman discloses: The video editing module 320 analyzes metadata associated with a video to identify best scenes of the video based on identified events of interest or activities and generates a video summary including one or more of the identified best scenes of the video. See para. 45. In some embodiments, tagged event of interest can be indicated within metadata associated with a captured video and the camera creates metadata associated with the captured video indicating that the video includes an event of interest and indicating a time or portion within the captured video at which the tagged event of interest occurs. See para. 47. For instance, particular words or phrases of dialogue, or the like can be associated with particular activities. See para. 54. Newman further discloses the video editing module 320 generates a video summary by combining or concatenating some or all of the identified best scenes into a single video. See para. 61. A video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary by the video editing module. See para. 73); and
modified output, of the content item, based on the detected stress triggering scene (e.g., Newman discloses: the video editing module 320 can apply one or more edits, effects, filters, and the like to one or more best scenes within the video summary, or to the entire video summary during the generation of the video summary. See para. 61).
As per claim 2, Newman discloses causing output of an interface indicating a plurality of types of stress trigger events (e.g., video summary templates of events of interest, including a set of candidate video clips for inclusion of summary template slots, based on activity types, are presented to the user using a video summary generation interface with a user interface allowing the user to generate video summary templates. See paras. 77-78 and 82); and receiving user selection of one or more of the types of stress trigger events indicated in the interface (e.g., Newman discloses: A portion of the captured video associated with the metadata pattern is selected 840 and is outputted 850 based on the activity associated with the identified metadata pattern and/or one or more user settings. For instance, a user can select “snowboarding jump” and “3 seconds before and after” as an activity and video portion length, respectively. In such an example, when a user captures video, a metadata pattern associated with a snowboarding jump can be identified, and a video portion consisting of 3 seconds before and 3 seconds after the video associated with the snowboarding jump can automatically be uploaded to a social media outlet. See para. 87).
As per claim 3, Newman discloses causing output of an interface indicating a plurality of available responses to stress trigger events; and receiving user selection of one or more of the responses to stress trigger events. See paras. 77-78 and 82-84.
As per claim 4, Newman discloses the modified output comprises: automatically skipping the detected stress triggering scene; automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with a textual summary of the stress triggering scene;
automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with calming content; or
automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with information indicating a resource for dealing with the stress triggering scene (e.g., Newman discloses: accessed video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary), or can be selected based on any other suitable criteria. The video editing module 320 then selects a video clip for each slot in the video summary template and inserts (or replaces) the selected video clips into the video summary in the order of the slots within the video summary template. See paras. 73-78).
As per claim 5, Newman discloses generating the user stress profile by causing output of an interface that includes selectable options for: automatically skipping the detected stress triggering scene; automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with a textual summary of the stress triggering scene; automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with calming content; or automatically replacing the detected stress triggering scene with information indicating a resource for dealing with the stress triggering scene (e.g.. Newman discloses particular words or phrases of dialogue, or the like can be associated with particular activities. See para. 54. And, accessed video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary), or can be selected based on any other suitable criteria. The video editing module 320 then selects a video clip for each slot in the video summary template and inserts (or replaces) the selected video clips into the video summary in the order of the slots within the video summary template. See paras. 73-78).
As per claim 6, Newman discloses receiving user input indicating: a type of stress event to be avoided; and a filtering threshold for the type of stress event to be avoided (e.g., Newman discloses In one example, the video server 140 may provide the user with an interface executing on the client device 135 that the user may use to upload videos to the video store 315. In one embodiment, the video server 140 indexes videos retrieved from the camera 130 or the client device 135, and stores information associated with the indexed videos in the video store. For example, the video server 140 provides the user with an interface to select one or more index filters used to index videos. Examples of index filters include but are not limited to: the type of equipment used by the user (e.g., ski equipment, mountain bike equipment, etc.), the type of activity being performed by the user while the video was captured (e.g., snowboarding, mountain biking, etc.), the time and data at which the video was captured, or the type of camera 130 used by the user. See para. 40). See also paras. 45-53 and 73-78.
As per claim 7, Newman discloses the modified output comprises output, after the detected stress triggering scene is output to the user, of information indicating a resource for dealing with the stress triggering scene (e.g., template summary generated based on ranking of identified best scenes or video clips satisfying a pre-determined threshold requirement. See paras. 45-53, 73-75 and 81-84).
As per claim 8, Newman discloses the modified output is based on information indicating different remedies for different severities of a type of stress trigger event (e.g., the generated scenes of the video are ranked further based on types of the metadata used to identify the scenes of the video, wherein a first scene is ranked higher than a second scene based on the first scene being identified based on camera velocity and the second scene being identified based on user heart rate. See claims 6 and 7 of Newman).
As per claim 14, Newman discloses causing, by a computing device, output of a listing of a plurality of different types of stress events (e.g., Newman discloses: The metadata for the one or more videos may include a video summary based on rankings of events of interest associated with a user. See paras. 3-6 and 25-26. In addition, Newman discloses video summary templates of events of interest, including a set of candidate video clips for inclusion of summary template slots, based on activity types, are presented to the user using a video summary generation interface with a user interface allowing the user to generate video summary templates. See paras. 77-78 and 82)
receiving user input indicating that a user wishes to avoid one or more types of stress events selected from the listing (e.g., Newman discloses: A portion of the captured video associated with the metadata pattern is selected 840 and is outputted 850 based on the activity associated with the identified metadata pattern and/or one or more user settings. For instance, a user can select “snowboarding jump” and “3 seconds before and after” as an activity and video portion length, respectively. In such an example, when a user captures video, a metadata pattern associated with a snowboarding jump can be identified, and a video portion consisting of 3 seconds before and 3 seconds after the video associated with the snowboarding jump can automatically be uploaded to a social media outlet. See para. 87);
storing, for the user, a user stress profile based on the user input (see paras. 39-42 and 53-55);
receiving user input indicating a content item selected for output (see paras. 43, 55-56, 60-62 and 80-81);
determining, based on comparing the selected content item with the one or more types of stress events indicated by the user stress profile, stress events in the content item (e.g., Newman discloses: The video editing module 320 analyzes metadata associated with a video to identify best scenes of the video based on identified events of interest or activities and generates a video summary including one or more of the identified best scenes of the video. See para. 45. In some embodiments, tagged event of interest can be indicated within metadata associated with a captured video and the camera creates metadata associated with the captured video indicating that the video includes an event of interest and indicating a time or portion within the captured video at which the tagged event of interest occurs. See para. 47. Newman further discloses the video editing module 320 generates a video summary by combining or concatenating some or all of the identified best scenes into a single video. See para. 61. A video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary by the video editing module. See para. 73); and
causing, based on the determined stress events in the content item, modified output of the content item (e.g., Newman discloses: the video editing module 320 can apply one or more edits, effects, filters, and the like to one or more best scenes within the video summary, or to the entire video summary during the generation of the video summary. See para. 61).
As per claim 15, Newman discloses generating the user stress profile by causing output of a selectable option for automatically skipping a detected stress triggering scene (e.g., accessed video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary), or can be selected based on any other suitable criteria. The video editing module 320 then selects a video clip for each slot in the video summary template and inserts (or replaces) the selected video clips into the video summary in the order of the slots within the video summary template. See paras. 73-78).
As per claim 16, Newman discloses generating the user stress profile by causing output of a selectable option for automatically replacing a detected stress triggering scene with a textual summary of the stress triggering scene (e.g., Newman discloses metadata associated with several videos tagged with the activity “skydiving” can be analyzed to identify similarities within the metadata, such as a steep increase in acceleration at a high altitude followed by a high velocity at decreasing altitudes. The metadata patterns associated with particular activities can include audio data patterns. For instance, particular sound effects, words or phrases of dialogue, or the like can be associated with particular activities. See paras. 53-54. Newman further discloses that accessed video summary template can be automatically selected (for instance, based on an activity type or based on characteristics of metadata or video for use in generating the video summary), or can be selected based on any other suitable criteria. The video editing module 320 then selects a video clip for each slot in the video summary template and inserts (or replaces) the selected video clips into the video summary in the order of the slots within the video summary template. See paras. 73-78).
As per claim 17, Newman discloses generating the user stress profile by causing output of a selectable option for automatically replacing a detected stress triggering scene with calming content. See paras. 73-78.
As per claim 18, Newman discloses generating the user stress profile by causing output of a selectable option for automatically replacing a detected stress triggering scene with information indicating a resource for dealing with the stress triggering scene. See para. 73-78.
As per claim 19, Newman discloses output of a prompt for a filtering threshold to be used with comparing the one or more types of stress events to stress events in content items (For example, Newman discloses the video server 140 provides the user with an interface to select one or more index filters used to index videos. Examples of index filters include but are not limited to: the type of equipment used by the user (e.g., ski equipment, mountain bike equipment, etc.), the type of activity being performed by the user while the video was captured (e.g., snowboarding, mountain biking, etc.), the time and data at which the video was captured, or the type of camera 130 used by the user. See para. 40).
As per claim 20, Newman discloses the causing of the modified output is based on weighting different trigger indicators differently for a first type of stress event (e.g., Newman discloses: To identify such videos, the video editing module 320 can query the video store 310 to identify videos associated with the user. In some embodiments, each video captured by all users of the video server 140 includes a unique identifier identifying the user that captured the video and identifying the video (as described above). In such embodiments, the video editing module 320 queries the video store 310 with an identifier associated with a user to identify videos associated with the user. For example, if all videos associated with User A include a unique identifier that starts with the sequence “X1Y2Z3” (an identifier unique to User A), the video editing module 320 can query the video store 310 using the identifier “X1Y2Z3” to identify all videos associated with User A. The video editing module 320 can then identify best scenes within such videos associated with a user, and can generate a video summary including such best scenes as described herein. See para. 65. In some embodiments, users can specify metadata criteria for use in flagging one or more video frames that satisfy pre-determined criteria. Similarly, in some embodiments, the video editing module 320 can identify metadata patterns or similarities in frames selected by a user to save as images/photograph stills, and can identify subsequent video frames that include the identified metadata patterns or similarities for flagging as candidates to save as images/photograph stills. See para. 66).
The subject-matters of claim 21 correspond in terms of an apparatus to that of independent method claim 1. The features of claim 21 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 except the invention category. Accordingly, the same reasonings applied for the rejections of claim 1 also apply to claim 21. In addition, Newman discloses one or more processors (202); and a memory (204) storing instructions that are executed by the one or more processors. See para. 33.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 27 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7
Claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beltran (US 20220099519) discloses a platform for the tracking and management of stress encountered by a user. Biometric data corresponding to the stress of the user is collected and analyzed to determine the stress level of a user. In one embodiment, this data is cross-referenced with data such as data from a user's calendar operable to provide context and/or reason to the stress level. Based on the data, conversation models and resources are operable to be provided to the user to help in mitigating and managing stress.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
04/30/2026
Prosecution Insights