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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/25/23; 9/24/25; 1/5/26 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
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(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 are drawn to a method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “provide information relating to the cognitive state of the first individual” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A measurement unit operable to measure the first individual’s hand movement is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
A recoding module configured to record data is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), and
A machine learning module is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data processing/data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (information relating to the cognitive state of the first individual) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, a measurement unit is considered data gathering. It is noted that measuring the first individual’s hand movement recited at a high level of generality.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
A measurement unit operable to measure the first individual’s hand movement is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
A recoding module configured to record data is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
A machine learning module is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 depend from claim 1. The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 2-3 are considered extra solution activity. The devices utilized to collect the data as stated in claims 5-10 and 12-14 are stated at a high level of generality in applicant’s specification (“a smart watch; a touchpad device; a steering wheel; a smart handheld device; a waveform analysis kiosk; and a connected device”) and are merely used as a tool to carry out the data gathering. Thus, the dependent claims do not change the overall analysis that claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 15-19 and 21
Independent claim 15 contains method limitations similar to claim 1 and are similarly rejected as patent ineligible subject matter. Dependent claims 16-19 and 21 are similar to dependent claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 and are rejected based on the same reasoning as above.
Claims 22-23
Independent claim 22 contains limitations similar to claim 1 and are similarly rejected as patent ineligible subject matter. Dependent claim 23 is similar to dependent claim 10 and is rejected based on the same reasoning as above.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19 and 21 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 15.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 is rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 12, 15, 17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laput et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0117889 hereinafter “Laput”).
Regarding claim 1, Laput discloses an apparatus (e.g. 102) for providing information relating to a cognitive state of a first individual, the apparatus comprising: a measurement unit (e.g. 104) operable to measure the first individual's hand movement in a personal axis, the personal axis being an axis from the hand to the first individual (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32), a recording module (e.g. 110) configured to record data from the measurement unit, a machine learning module (e.g. 106) configured to provide information relating to the cognitive state of the first individual using a set of first movement data based on the data recorded by the recording module, wherein the set of first movement data preferentially relates to movement of the hand of the first individual in the personal axis over movement of the hand of the first individual in axes orthogonal to the personal axis (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32).
Regarding claim 3, Laput further discloses a feature extraction module configured to preferentially extract, from the data recorded by the recording module, data relating to movement of the hand of the first individual in the personal axis, to form the set of first movement data (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32).
Regarding claim 4, Laput further discloses comprising a mobile device, wherein the first individual is a user of the mobile device, and the measurement unit is an IMU in the mobile device (e.g. ¶38).
Regarding claim 5, Laput further discloses comprising a mobile device, wherein the first individual is a user of the mobile device, and the measurement unit is an IMU in the mobile device, wherein the IMU includes a gyroscope for measuring the orientation change of the mobile device, and the feature extraction module is configured to utilise data recorded by the recording module relating to the orientation change of the mobile device to preferentially extract, from the data recorded by the recording module, data relating to movement of the hand of the first individual in the personal axis, to form the set of first movement data (e.g. ¶¶31, 38 and 43).
Regarding claim 12, Laput further discloses wherein the measurement unit includes an accelerometer and the apparatus includes an integration module configured to integrate the data recorded by the recording module resulting from the accelerometer, wherein the set of first movement data is based on the integrated data (e.g. see Fig. 1).
15. (Original) A method of providing information relating to a cognitive state of a first individual, including: using a machine learning module (e.g. 106) to provide information relating to the cognitive state of the first individual using a set of first movement data relating to movement of a hand of the first individual, wherein the set of first movement data preferentially relates to movement of the hand of the first individual in the personal axis over movement of the hand of the first individual in axes orthogonal to the personal axis, the personal axis being an axis from the hand to the first individual (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32).
Regarding claim 17, Laput further discloses measuring movement of the hand of the first individual to determine the set of first movement data (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32).
Regarding claim 21, Laput further discloses the method is executed on a computing device (e.g. 108).
Regarding claim 22, Laput discloses a computer implemented system for providing information relating to a cognitive state of a first individual, including: a machine learning module (e.g. 106) configured to provide information relating to the cognitive state of the first individual using a set of first movement data, wherein the set of first movement data preferentially relates to movement of a hand of the first individual in the personal axis over movement of the hand of the first individual in axes orthogonal to the personal axis, the personal axis being an axis from the hand to the first individual (e.g. ¶¶26, 30 and 32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796