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
In reply to the application filed on 14 October 2025 the following changes have been made: amendment to claim 1. Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-11 have been canceled.
Claims 12-19 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 12-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
While, acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 18 January 2021, it is noted, however, that applicant has still not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2021/001494 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Examiner also points out that 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(2) specifies for a 371 National Stage Application the requirement of “a translation into the English language of the international application, if it was filed in another language”
Hence, applicant is not entitled to foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan.
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, 4, and 9 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1, 4, and 9).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
measuring measurement data with a wearable terminal that includes an acceleration sensor;
transmitting, from the wearable terminal, the measurement data to an information processing apparatus;
classifying, by at least one processor of the information processing apparatus, measurement data into first measurement data and second measurement data, the measurement data having been measured during a predetermined time period and pertaining to a stress level that indicates a degree of stress of the subject, the first measurement data having been measured during working hours of the subject, and the second measurement data having been measured outside the working hours;
estimating, by the at least one processor, a stress level of the subject using the first measurement data and the second measurement data;
calculating, by the at least one processor, a first feature quantity from the first measurement data; and
calculating, by the at least one processor, a second feature quantity from the second measurement data, wherein
in the estimating of the stress level, the stress level of the subject being estimated using an estimation model for which the first feature quantity and the second feature quantity are used as explanatory variables, and from which a stress level is obtained as an objective variable, and
in the classifying of the measurement data, the at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting based on an activity pattern specified by analyzing measured acceleration data of the subject and classifies the measurement data obtained during a predetermined time period into the first measurement data based on the detection.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components.
These steps for estimating stress level of the subject, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from practically being performed in the mind through evaluation, judgement, and forming an opinion to determine stress level of the subject using measurement data. This could be analogized to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The italicized portions containing the recitation of calculating a first feature, calculating a second feature, and using an estimation model to estimate stress level have also been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of with a wearable terminal that includes an acceleration sensor;
transmitting, from the wearable terminal, the measurement data to an information processing apparatus; by at least one processor of the information processing apparatus; by at least one processor; the at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting; a wearable terminal with an acceleration sensor for measuring measurement data and transmitting the measurement data; and, an information processing apparatus with at least one processor and memory storing instructions amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Each of the above additional element(s) therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of with a wearable terminal that includes an acceleration sensor;
transmitting, from the wearable terminal, the measurement data to an information processing apparatus; by at least one processor of the information processing apparatus; by at least one processor; the at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting; a wearable terminal with an acceleration sensor for measuring measurement data and transmitting the measurement data; and, an information processing apparatus with at least one processor and memory storing instructions; e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 4, 9, 12-14, and 16-19 particular aspects for detecting abnormality such as
[Claims 4 & 16] the at least one processor classifies the second measurement data into a plurality of types in accordance with a status of the subject at a time when the second measurement data has been measured; and
the at least one processor estimates the stress level of the subject based on a result of the classification;
[Claim 9] A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a stress level estimation program for causing a computer to carry out the classifying of measurement data, the calculating of a first feature quantity, the calculating of a second feature quantity, and the estimating of a stress level which are recited in claim 1;
[Claims 12 & 17] wherein the acceleration sensor comprises a triaxial
acceleration sensor for measuring the acceleration data of the subject;
[Claims 13 & 18] calculating a particular feature quantity that is positively correlated with the stress level of the subject during a predetermined time period using triaxial acceleration data in a time series for the predetermined time period;
[Claims 14 & 19] outputting, by a display of the information processing apparatus, the estimated stress level of the subject;
these italicized portions covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 4, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 4 & 16 (the at least one processor); claim 9 (A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a stress level estimation program for causing a computer to carry out the classifying of measurement data, the calculating of a first feature quantity, the calculating of a second feature quantity, and the estimating of a stress level which are recited in claim 1); claims 12 & 17 (wherein the acceleration sensor comprises a triaxial acceleration sensor for measuring the acceleration data of the subject); and claims 14 & 19 (by a display of the information processing apparatus) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 4, 9, 14, 16, and 19 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 12 & 17 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0144] which provides examples of generic processors and which provides examples of generic memory types. There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP2018011720A) in view of Genno et al. (JP2000237146A) and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (JP2002263086A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima discloses measuring measurement data with a wearable terminal that includes an acceleration sensor ([pg. 9] “The acceleration sensor measures acceleration related to the movement of the measurement target.”)
transmitting, from the wearable terminal, the measurement data to an information processing apparatus ([pg. 22] “The computing device 20 can be connected to or communicated with the input device 25 and the output device 26. The calculation processing device 20 can transmit/ receive information to / from other calculation processing devices and communication devices via the communication IF 27. The input device 25 represents a pulse wave sensor, an acceleration sensor, a skin surface conductivity sensor, a heart rate sensor, or a wearable device.”)
classifying, by at least one processor of the information processing apparatus, the measurement data into first measurement data and second measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 26] “degree of stress estimated by the first chronic stress estimator for the first measurement object […] A heart rate sensor for measuring a heart rate of the second measurement target”)
the measurement data having been measured during a predetermined time period and pertaining to a stress level that indicates a degree of stress of the subject ([pg. 6] “stress information representing the degree of stress when receiving the psychological burden during the first period.”)
the first measurement data having been measured during working hours of the subject ([pg. 8] “based on the accumulation of psychological burden on a measurement target that has the risk of causing chronic stress as a result of accumulating psychological burden due to work.”)
and the second measurement data having been measured outside the working hours ([pg. 10] “Based on the measurement information measured for the measurement target by the measurement unit 103 having the above-described sensor […] in the measurement target and the rest (or vacation for the measurement target). Timing.”)
estimating, by the at least one processor, a stress level of the subject using the first measurement data and the second measurement data;
([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 17] “a chronic stress can be estimated in a short time. This is because, in the estimation process, the stress estimation apparatus 102 refers to measurement information and training information (for example, psychological burden training information and first chronic stress training information)”)
calculating, by the at least one processor, a first feature quantity from the first measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 2] “A value of the first feature value is calculated from measurement information measured with respect to the first measurement object according to the predetermined first feature value calculation procedure, and the calculated value is stored in the psychological burden information storage unit.”)
and calculating, by the at least one processor, a second feature quantity from the second measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 23] “A second feature representing the feature of the second measurement information calculated according to a predetermined second feature amount calculation procedure different from the predetermined first feature amount calculation procedure from the second measurement information measured with respect to the second measurement object.”)
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose however Genno teaches wherein in the estimating of the stress level, the stress level of the subject being estimated using an estimation model for which the first feature quantity and the second feature quantity are used as explanatory variables, and from which a stress level is obtained as an objective variable ([pg. 8] “Subsequently, a multiple regression analysis is performed for each group of subjects, using three indices (average heart rate u, skin temperature v, blink rate w) as explanatory variables and subjective report value z of stress as an objective variable.A multiple regression equation of the following equation 2 is obtained for each group.
Group 1: z 1 = α 1 u + β 1 v + γ 1 w + η 1 Group 2: z 2 = α 2 u + β 2 v + γ 2 w + η 2)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima the stress level of the subject being estimated using an estimation model for which the first feature quantity and the second feature quantity are used as explanatory variables, and from which a stress level is obtained as an objective variable as taught by Genno since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nakajima in view of Genno does not explicitly disclose however Ichikawa teaches and in the classifying of the measurement data, the at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting based on an activity pattern specified by analyzing measured acceleration data of the subject and classifies the measurement data obtained during a predetermined time period into the first measurement data based on the detection ([pg. 2] “the motion sensor is operated at a predetermined timing to output acceleration […] The discriminating means classifies the type of action into running or walking and other movements based on the presence or absence of periodicity of at least one of the acceleration output […] The running or walking motion is further classified into running and walking according to an amount related to the magnitude of the acceleration output, and the running is further divided into a plurality of intensities by an amount related to the magnitude of the acceleration output”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima and Genno at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting based on an activity pattern specified by analyzing measured acceleration data of the subject and classifies the measurement data obtained during a predetermined time period into the first measurement data based on the detection as taught by Ichikawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima discloses A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a stress level estimation program for causing a computer to carry out the classifying of measurement data, the calculating of a first feature quantity, the calculating of a second feature quantity, and the estimating of a stress level which are recited in claim 1 ([pg. 6] “Furthermore, this object is also realized by a computer-readable recording medium that records the program.”)
Regarding claim 14, Nakajima discloses outputting, by a display of the information processing apparatus, the estimated stress level of the subject ([pg. 16] “stress estimation apparatus 102 outputs, for example, a message indicating that chronic stress is high”)
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima discloses a wearable terminal with an acceleration sensor for measuring measurement data and transmitting the measurement data ([pg. 9] “The measuring unit 103 is a wristband-like wearable device having at least one of a pulse wave sensor, an acceleration sensor, a skin surface conductivity sensor, a heart rate sensor, and the like (described later with reference to FIG. 5)”)
and an information processing apparatus with at least one processor and memory storing instructions for: ([pg. 22] “That is, the CPU 21 copies a software program (computer program: hereinafter simply referred to as “program”) stored in the disk 23 to the memory 22 and executes arithmetic processing”)
receiving the measurement data transmitted by the wearable terminal;
([pg. 22] “The computing device 20 can be connected to or communicated with the input device 25 and the output device 26. The calculation processing device 20 can transmit/ receive information to / from other calculation processing devices and communication devices via the communication IF 27. The input device 25 represents a pulse wave sensor, an acceleration sensor, a skin surface conductivity sensor, a heart rate sensor, or a wearable device.”)
classifying, by at least one processor of the information processing apparatus, the measurement data into first measurement data and second measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 26] “degree of stress estimated by the first chronic stress estimator for the first measurement object […] A heart rate sensor for measuring a heart rate of the second measurement target”)
the measurement data having been measured during a predetermined time period and pertaining to a stress level that indicates a degree of stress of the subject ([pg. 6] “stress information representing the degree of stress when receiving the psychological burden during the first period.”)
the first measurement data having been measured during working hours of the subject ([pg. 8] “based on the accumulation of psychological burden on a measurement target that has the risk of causing chronic stress as a result of accumulating psychological burden due to work.”)
and the second measurement data having been measured outside the working hours ([pg. 10] “Based on the measurement information measured for the measurement target by the measurement unit 103 having the above-described sensor […] in the measurement target and the rest (or vacation for the measurement target). Timing.”)
estimating, by the at least one processor, a stress level of the subject using the first measurement data and the second measurement data;
([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 17] “a chronic stress can be estimated in a short time. This is because, in the estimation process, the stress estimation apparatus 102 refers to measurement information and training information (for example, psychological burden training information and first chronic stress training information)”)
calculating, by the at least one processor, a first feature quantity from the first measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 2] “A value of the first feature value is calculated from measurement information measured with respect to the first measurement object according to the predetermined first feature value calculation procedure, and the calculated value is stored in the psychological burden information storage unit.”)
and calculating, by the at least one processor, a second feature quantity from the second measurement data ([pg. 10] “The stress estimation apparatus 102 can be realized using, for example, a computer” [pg. 23] “A second feature representing the feature of the second measurement information calculated according to a predetermined second feature amount calculation procedure different from the predetermined first feature amount calculation procedure from the second measurement information measured with respect to the second measurement object.”)
Nakajima does not explicitly disclose however Genno teaches wherein in the estimating of the stress level, the stress level of the subject being estimated using an estimation model for which the first feature quantity and the second feature quantity are used as explanatory variables, and from which a stress level is obtained as an objective variable ([pg. 8] “Subsequently, a multiple regression analysis is performed for each group of subjects, using three indices (average heart rate u, skin temperature v, blink rate w) as explanatory variables and subjective report value z of stress as an objective variable.A multiple regression equation of the following equation 2 is obtained for each group.
Group 1: z 1 = α 1 u + β 1 v + γ 1 w + η 1 Group 2: z 2 = α 2 u + β 2 v + γ 2 w + η 2)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima the stress level of the subject being estimated using an estimation model for which the first feature quantity and the second feature quantity are used as explanatory variables, and from which a stress level is obtained as an objective variable as taught by Genno since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nakajima in view of Genno does not explicitly disclose however Ichikawa teaches and in the classifying of the measurement data, the at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting based on an activity pattern specified by analyzing measured acceleration data of the subject and classifies the measurement data obtained during a predetermined time period into the first measurement data based on the detection ([pg. 2] “the motion sensor is operated at a predetermined timing to output acceleration […] The discriminating means classifies the type of action into running or walking and other movements based on the presence or absence of periodicity of at least one of the acceleration output […] The running or walking motion is further classified into running and walking according to an amount related to the magnitude of the acceleration output, and the running is further divided into a plurality of intensities by an amount related to the magnitude of the acceleration output”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima and Genno at least one processor detects a preregistered activity pattern during commuting based on an activity pattern specified by analyzing measured acceleration data of the subject and classifies the measurement data obtained during a predetermined time period into the first measurement data based on the detection as taught by Ichikawa since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 14.
Claims 4 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP2018011720A) in view of Genno et al. (JP2000237146A), Ichikawa et al. (JP2002263086A), and further in view of Ono et al. (JP2017049047A).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima does not explicitly disclose however Genno teaches and the at least one processor estimates the stress level of the subject based on a result of the classification ([pg. 5 to pg. 6] “Astress measuring device according to the present invention […] A grouping result storage means in which results of classifying a plurality of subjects having similar correlations between each index and stress as one group are stored, and a plurality of index values for each classified group are stored. […] Substituting a plurality of index values for the human body into the stress estimation formula for the group determined by the group determination means, Stress estimating means for calculating an estimated value of the stress level.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima to estimate the stress level of the subject based on a result of the classification as taught by Genno since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Nakajima in view of Genno and Ichikawa does not explicitly disclose however Ono teaches the at least one processor classifies the second measurement data into a plurality of types in accordance with a status of the subject at a time when the second measurement data has been measured ([pg. 6] “a pattern in which a computer is patterned by classifying measurement results” [pg. 13] “For example, the classification result 90-1 is a result of classifying the second measured values at times a, b, and c by the discriminator 60B-1, and is classified into the pattern Pt1, the pattern Pt2, and the pattern Pt2, respectively. The classification result 90-2 is a result of classifying the second measurement values at times a, b, and c by the discriminator 60B-2, and is classified into the pattern Pt3, the pattern Pt2, and the pattern Pt1, respectively.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima, Genno, and Ichikawa at least one processor to classify the second measurement data into a plurality of types in accordance with a status of the subject at a time when the second measurement data has been measured as taught by Ono since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Claims 12-13 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (JP2018011720A) in view of Genno et al. (JP2000237146A), Ichikawa et al. (JP2002263086A), and further in view of Nakashima et al. (WO2019159252A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima in view of Genno and Ichikawa does not explicitly disclose however Nakashima teaches wherein the acceleration sensor comprises a triaxial acceleration sensor for measuring the acceleration data of the subject ([pg. 11] “the triaxial acceleration that reflects the user's body movement”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima, Genno, and Ichikawa a triaxial acceleration sensor for measuring the acceleration data of the subject as taught by Nakashima since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima in view of Genno and Ichikawa does not explicitly disclose however Nakashima teaches calculating a particular feature quantity that is positively correlated with the stress level of the subject during a predetermined time period using triaxial acceleration data in a time series for the predetermined time period ([pg. 12] “The stress feature quantity calculation unit 105 calculates the stress feature quantity from the whole period biosignal for one month. […] “Regarding the selection of feature values, processing was performed in three cases, up to the top five, the top ten, and the top 20 of the correlation coefficient with PSS.” [pg. 6] “the whole period is 1 month and the short period is 1 day. The numerical sequence by the PN represented expression (1) is a biological signal for one day on the Nth day. The “certain biological signal” may be any one-dimensional signal such as a heartbeat, a pulse wave, a numerical value of skin conductivity, and an acceleration in the X-axis direction”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Nakajima, Genno, and Ichikawa calculating a particular feature quantity that is positively correlated with the stress level of the subject during a predetermined time period using triaxial acceleration data in a time series for the predetermined time period as taught by Nakashima since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 14 October 2025 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, the applicant argues that claims 1 & 15 do not recite abstract ideas and are sufficiently integrated into a practical application when compared to claim 4 of USPTO Example 46. Applicant states that the specification allows achieving a technical effect of improving the accuracy in estimating a stress level of a subject. Applicant also states that the claimed subject matter recites significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Examiner asserts that there is nothing specific about generically claiming result-focused limitations without details on how the results are actually achieved by the computer/computer processes. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). Thus, the claims still recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, examiner asserts that the specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of conventional stress estimation methods not taking into account working hours or outside the working hours ([0007] to [0009] of the specification) through using computers to automate estimation of stress level with higher accuracy. As can be seen, the applicant’s main/glaring issue is that specification does not show or describe a deficiency in the technology. Applicant’s own specification [0002] & [0007] to [0008] literally admits that previously stress estimation methods were performed by humans. Applicant is simply using computers in place of humans to improve upon the judicial exception. Specifically, it is abundantly evident from the specification that the applicant is using computer(s) as a tool to automate a manual process. In other words, it is evident applicant is improving upon the judicial exception and not improving computer technology. The examiner asserts the following facts: 1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality, 2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and 3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement. Improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are also not significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive, and so the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
Regarding the USC 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot since they do not apply to the newly cited reference of record: Wexler et al. and Ichikawa et al.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Mozgovoy, V. (2021). Longitudinal estimation of stress-related states through bio-sensor data. Applied Computing and Informatics.
This reference is relevant because it discloses a stress estimation model using sensor data.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/W.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687