DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, and 8-15 are rejected. Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant asserts that claims 1-15 have sufficient support in the specification and drawings and should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the structure for “a processing unit” as claimed is not recited in the claims, but is recited in the specification. The Examiner notes that this claim interpretation is not a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that independent claims 1 and 14 recite a system that provides a real-world technological improvement in a system and device for detecting mental stress of a person and in turn, improves computer-implemented stress detection systems itself, alike Enfish. However, the Examiner disagrees. The alleged improvement is directed to the abstract idea itself. An improvement to the abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/14/26, with respect to claims 1, 4, and 8-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-15 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note below for further details.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/25 is being considered by the examiner.
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:
a processing unit in claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14.
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.
For the processing unit in claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 14, the specification discloses “the stress detection device 10 generally comprises an activity input 11, a heart rate input 12, a processing unit 13…” (page 7). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the processing unit to be a part of the stress detection device.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 15 does not invoke the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by way of the 3-prong test.
Prong 1: “means”
Prong 2: “for causing a computer to carry out the steps of the method”Prong 3: sufficient structure is not claimed.
According to the specification, “the method disclosed herein when said computer program is carried out on a computer as well as a non- transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the method disclosed herein to be performed” (page 2). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation of “means for causing a computer to carry out the steps of the method” to be performed by a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 4, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation "the current value of the heart rate signal " in line 10 of claim 1 for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is interpreting the limitation to recite a current heart rate of the heart rate information.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation "the current value of the basal heart rate" in lines 10-11 of claim 1 for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner is interpreting the limitation to recite a current heart rate of a basal heart rate.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention and thus fails as eligible subject matter. Claim 15 characterizes the invention as a computer program.
MPEP 2106.03(I) recites:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1 and 14 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a device and a method for detecting mental stress of a person.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the recited steps are directed to mathematical concepts and a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations of “compute a basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information by taking the difference between the current value of the heart rate signal and the current value of the basal heart rate, multiplying the difference with a multiplication constant and obtaining a new value for basal heart rate by integration of the result, compute a mental stress heart rate component by subtracting, from the current heart rate of the person, the computed activity heart rate component and the computed basal heart rate component and compute mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component” are mathematical calculations of subtraction (see page 2 of the specification) and multiplication in order for detecting mental stress.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitations of “detect a posture change of the person from the obtained activity information, compute a basal heart rate component from the obtained heart rate information by taking the difference between the current value of the heart rate signal and the current value of the basal heart rate, multiplying the difference with a multiplication constant and obtaining a new value for basal heart rate by integration of the result, wherein the processing unit is configured to use a first multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is larger than the current value of the heart rate signal, a second multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is smaller than the current value of the heart rate signal, and a third multiplication constant if a posture detection is detected, wherein the second multiplication constant is smaller than the first multiplication constant and the first multiplication constant is smaller than the third multiplication constant, compute an activity heart rate component from the obtained activity information, and compute mental stress information related to mental stress of the person from the mental stress heart rate component” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of activity and heart rate information, performing simple subtraction and multiplication on paper, performing simple threshold comparisons to determine respective multiplication constants to determine a basal heart rate component, and an activity heart rate component. Additionally, analyzing a print out of the mental stress heart rate component to determine mental stress information.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1 and 14, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 14 recite “an activity input, a heart rate input, a processing unit, and an output.” The activity input, heart rate input, processing unit, and output are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Additionally, the outputting is nothing more than post-solution activity of data gathering. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
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 activity input, heart rate input, processing unit, and output are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Moreover, the instant specification discloses that stress detection device 10 (that contains activity input and heart rate input) may be implemented as a computer or a processor (page 7, lines 24-26). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 8-13, and 15, the limitations of claims 1 and 14 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 8-9 and 11 further define the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 12 further define the data gathering and abstract idea. The activity sensor and heart rate sensor are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by US 20160353995 (¶4-a conventional system for monitoring exercise using heart rate; ¶16-made it possible to automate the monitoring and recording of fitness activities and to integrate them into more easily worn equipment), US 20060047208 (¶5- an exercise meter to measure the quantity of exercise of a user, which employs a conventional electric sensor; ¶6-the conventional exercise meter comprises a chest band to which an electric sensor is attached, and a heart rate monitoring watch to monitor the heart rate (heartbeats per minute; hereinafter referred to as "HR")), and US 20160128638 (¶55-the data can be acquired, at 110, in any conventional manner. The data, for example, can comprise biometric and contextual data that is received from one or more sensors (not shown), exemplary biometric data can include heart rate value, heart rate variability values, blood pressure values, galvanic skin response level value, and/or respiration value data. Data regarding motion intensity and/or other accelerometer data, coordinates, and/or anthropometric characteristics can also be included).
Claim 13 further defines the data gathering.
Claim 15 is a computer program which is not directed to a statutory category.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 4, and 8-15 distinguish over the prior art but are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The scope of wherein the processing unit is configured to use - a first multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is larger than the current value of the heart rate signal, - a second multiplication constant if the current value of the basal heart rate is smaller than the current value of the heart rate signal, and - a third multiplication constant if a posture detection is detected, wherein the second multiplication constant is smaller than the first multiplication constant and the first multiplication constant is smaller than the third multiplication constant were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is US 20190090757; however it fails to recite wherein the second multiplication constant is smaller than the first multiplication constant and the first multiplication constant is smaller than the third multiplication constant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140323880: with regard to the user's resting heart rate, moving averages of the resting heart rate are analyzed to determine significant deviations (¶162).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights