DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 08/17/2023, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 32-51 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Examiner’s Note: Attempts were made to contact the attorney of record to discuss amendments to move the application into condition for allowance by phone on 06/23/2026 and 06/26/2026 and by email on 06/24/2026 but no reply was received.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, figure 16 does not reflect the updated calculation of paragraph 0093. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 facial expression analysis processor in claim 32
a three-dimensional graph generation processor in claim 32
a cerebral activity index measurement algorithm of claims 37 and 47
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.
Examiner’s Note: all references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 20240008785 A1.
a facial expression analysis processor of claim 32 is interpreted as the particular structures and algorithm for carrying out the recited function of calculating a cerebral activity index, mood index, and stress level from their associated parameters. Paragraphs 0134-0135 recite that the cerebral activity index is calculated using cerebral activity index (CEM) values from the user’s voice using the SICECA algorithm taught by Yuki Aoki et. al. Paragraphs 0136-0141 recite that the mood level is calculated by extracting emotion from a facial expression using an open-source “face classification and detection algorithm” then using the proportion of each recognized emotion and corresponding weighting factors to calculate a mood index for each emotion, the mood level is then obtained by dividing the highest mood index value by the total of all mood index values. Paragraphs 0142-0145 recite that the stress level is determined by sectioning pulse wave data into Hamming windows, generating a pulse to pulse interval (PPI) graph, performing linear or cubic spline interpolation on the PPI graph, applying a fast Fourier transform (FFT) on the interpolation, and integrating a power spectral density of the FFT into high and low frequency components which are used in a ratio or independently to provide a value for stress level after being normalized. The data managing section is interpreted as the above described algorithms which each correspond to one of the recited functions and their respective equivalents.
a three-dimensional graph generation processor of claim 32 is interpreted as the particular structures and algorithm for carrying out the recited function of displaying a graph of points plotted at coordinates corresponding to the cerebral activity index, mood index, and stress level in a three dimensional space defined by and X, Y, and Z axis. Paragraphs 0116 and 0148-0150 describe that the system may plot the mood, stress, and fatigue levels in a three-dimensional coordinate system and display the graph on the terminal device which may be a computer or smartphone. The three-axes processing system in interpreted as a display and the algorithm for generating the recited graph and its equivalents.
a cerebral activity index measurement algorithm of claims 37 and 47 is interpreted as the particular algorithm for carrying out the recited function of calculating a cerebral activity index from its associated parameters. Paragraphs 0134-0135 recite that the cerebral activity index is calculated using cerebral activity index (CEM) values from the user’s voice using the SICECA algorithm taught by Yuki Aoki et. al. The algorithm is thus interpreted as the off-the-shelf algorithm utilized and described by Yuki Aoki et. al. and it’s equivalents.
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.
Claims 39 and 49 recite “low-frequency component” and “high-frequency component” the term “low-frequency component” is interpreted as 0.04 Hz or higher and lower than 0.15 Hz and “high-frequency component” is interpreted as 0.15 Hz or higher and lower than 0.4 Hz as defined by paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0146 of the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 36-38, 46, and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 36-37 and 46 it appears that “the data related to the voice” should read “the voice data”
Claim 37 it appears that “CEM” should read “cerebral activity (CEM)”
Claims 38 and 48 it appears that “the data related to the pulse wave” should read “the pulse wave data”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 32-51 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 32 recites “generate and display a graph of points, plotted at coordinates corresponding to the cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level on mutually different axes in a three-dimensional space” but it is unclear what the particular graph being generated entails. In particular, the recitation is worded to seemingly indicate that each of the cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level are plotted separately on their own respective axes. It is unclear if each of the cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level are plotted separately, such that the graph is a combination of three one-dimensional graphs, or if each point on the graph corresponds to a respective time and the point’s position in the 3-D space is mapped by the corresponding cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level that are associated with the respective point in time. If the latter interpretation is correct, then it would seem that some mention of measurements being taken at multiple time points should be made to convey the presence of multiple points on the graph. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as the graph representing multiple time points each with coordinates corresponding to the cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level at that time point. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 42.
Claims 33-41 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 32.
Claims 43-51 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 42
Claim 33 recites “the three-dimensional graph generation processor displays a graph of points plotted according to a time series at coordinates corresponding to the cerebral activity index, the mood index, and the stress level of the subject for each of the dates and times in the three-dimensional space” but it is unclear if “a graph” of claim 33 is the same as, related to, or different from “a graph” of claim 32. Additionally, claim 33 recites “dates and times of acquisition” in lines 2-3 but this limitation is drawn towards the collected facial image data, pulse wave data, and voice data. It is unclear if the limitation “for each of the dates and times in the three-dimensional space” of line 9 is intended to convey that the plotted points of the calculated values correspond to respective date and times of gathered data from which the calculated values are calculated from or if the calculated values are plotted at each date and time a measurement is taken but are not necessarily related to the measurement taken at the time they are plotted. The relationship between the dates and times of the data values and the calculated index values should be made clear as well as how this relationship carries over to the generated graph. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations will be interpreted as the graphed values corresponding to and being calculated from a respective raw data value with a shared timeframe. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 43.
Claim 34 recites “notifies a category” but it is unclear what action “notifies” is intended to convey. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to convey that a notification or message is produced and displayed by the graph generation processor to indicate which category the point falls within or if this limitation is intended to convey a determination of the corresponding category but does not require any form of notification or display to take place. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as requiring some form of notification to be displayed once the category classification has been made. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 44.
Claim 35 recites “notifies the improvement plan” but it is unclear what action “notifies” is intended to convey. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to convey that a notification or message is produced and displayed by the graph generation processor to indicate which improvement plan corresponds to the category or if this limitation is intended to convey a determination of the improvement plan but does not require any form of notification or display to take place. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as requiring some form of notification to be displayed once the improvement plan determination has been made. This rejection and interpretation are similarly applied to claim 45.
Claims 39 and 49 repeatedly refer to “the pulse wave” but it is unclear if each of these instances are meant to refer to “the pulse wave data” or if some or all of the instances are meant to refer to the pulse wave itself and lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 40 and 50 each refer to a low frequency and high frequency “section” but it is unclear if these “sections” are the same as, related to, or different from the low and high frequency “components” of claims 39 and 49 respectively. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations are interpreted as referring to the components of the preceding claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 recites “calculate a cerebral activity index based on the voice” but the specification does not appear to provide a sufficient number of species examples to support the claimed genus. In particular, the specification paragraphs 0113 and 0115 each describe that the cerebral activity index, or brain fatigue level, is determines using frequency analysis of the voice data. In particular the specific algorithm of paragraph 0134, the SiCECA algorithm, is utilized to determine this parameter. This algorithm relates to frequency analysis of the voice. These recitations are not considered to be a representative number of species to support the claimed genus of determining a cerebral activity index from any form of voice data. In particular utilized other forms of voice data such as the speech content are not supported by the specification. It would seem that the specification provides sufficient support for the determination of the cerebral activity index values from frequency elements of the voice data but not from the claimed any type of voice data. This rejection is further applied to claim 42.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is considered to be:
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2013/0018837 A1 hereinafter Lee teaches an emotion recognition apparatus which acquires a first emotion factor and a second emotion factor of an emotion model. An emotional state of a user is estimated based on the first emotion factor and the second emotion factor. The emotion recognition apparatus may also acquire a third emotion factor of the emotion model (Abstract). Lee teaches a system and method for acquiring up to three emotional factors and graphing the resultant emotional model in a three dimensional space (Paragraph 0110; Fig. 8) The emotional factors may include: introverted or extroverted (Paragraphs 0106-0107), an arousal level according to Russell’s emotional model, an intensity according to Watson-Telogen’s emotional model (Paragraph 0056), an intensity and/or amount of touch sensing data from a user typing (Paragraphs 0056-0057), or a device movement level (paragraph 0058).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2011/0022392 A1 hereinafter Iwamoto teaches a framework which performs location-based analysis using an individual feature such as a stress level obtained based on biological information. An information processing system including an acquisition unit which acquires frequency power information of a voice inputted at a mobile terminal having a voice communication function, and position information of a base station device that relayed voice communication of the mobile terminal when the voice was inputted; a storage unit which stores the acquired frequency power information and the acquired position information in association with each other; an acceptance unit which accepts designation of an area; and an output unit which identifies the position information related to the designated area, acquires the frequency power information associated with the identified position information with reference to the storage unit, obtains a stress level of a user of the mobile terminal in the designated area based on frequency power information of a frequency greater than or equal to a threshold value within the acquired frequency power information, and outputs the stress level in association with the designated area (Abstract). Iwamoto teaches the evaluation of stress based on a power spectral density analysis of the frequency of a user’s voice at a particular location (Paragraphs 0029-0030).
US Patent Number US 8204747 B2 hereinafter Kato teaches an emotion recognition apparatus which performs accurate and stable speech-based emotion recognition, irrespective of individual, regional, and language differences of prosodic information. The emotion recognition apparatus includes: a speech recognition unit which recognizes types of phonemes included in the input speech; a characteristic tone detection unit which detects a characteristic tone that relates to a specific emotion, in the input speech; a characteristic tone occurrence indicator computation unit which computes a characteristic tone occurrence indicator for each of the phonemes, based on the types of the phonemes recognized by the speech recognition unit, the characteristic tone occurrence indicator relating to an occurrence frequency of the characteristic tone; and an emotion judgment unit which judges an emotion of the speaker in a phoneme at which the characteristic tone occurs in the input speech, based on the characteristic tone occurrence indicator computed by the characteristic tone occurrence indicator computing unit (Abstract). Kato teaches that emotion may be identified according to characteristic tones in the user’s voice (Fig. 5 Col 13 line 53 – Col 14 line 48).
US Patent Number US 9928462 B2 hereinafter Samsung teaches an apparatus for determining a user's mental state in a terminal is provided. The apparatus includes a data collector configured to collect sensor data; a data processor configured to extract feature data from the sensor data; and a mental state determiner configured to provide the feature data to an inference model to determine the user's mental state (Abstract). Samsung teaches that sensor data may be collected as a user inputs text at a terminal. The user’s text input speed may be used as a feature to determine the user’s mental state after training a machine learning model (Col 9 lines 44-58).
Yuki Aoki “Development of an application for smartphones that estimates the degree of fatigue from voice” Pages 1-4 teaches that an algorithm for determining a brain activation measure, or CEM value, from a user’s voice may be used to estimate a degree of fatigue from the voice of the user. The SiCECA algorithm detects fluctuations and calculates the CEM using a chaological method. The CEM value can then be associated with different degrees of fatigue (Yuki Aoki: pages 3-4: sections 2.1-2.2.2 and 3.3; Table 1).
Akiyama “For QOL visualization system Stress State estimation method using pulse rate sensor” Pages 1-4 teaches a stress level estimation system using a pulse rate. The pulse to pulse interval over time is graphed and the low frequency and high frequency power spectral density is determined. The low frequency PSD is considered to represent the degree of activity of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system while the high frequency component is considered to represent a degree of activity of the parasympathetic nervous system. The relationship between the high and low frequency is considered to be indicative of stress level as defined by regions in a two dimension representation of their relationship (Page 3-4 sections 2-3.2).
Regarding claims 32 and 42, none of the prior art of record is considered to teach or reasonably suggest the recited three dimensional display of the recited parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but are considered moot in light of the newly presented grounds of rejection
It is noted that the display of the claimed indexes in three dimensional space where each region of that space is associated with a predetermined condition and/or corresponding treatment is considered to be a generation of a particular display because the prior art of record does not indicate that the generation of such a display is routine, conventional, or well-known. Thus the generation of the three-dimensional display is considered to incorporate the abstract idea of calculating the various indexes and levels into a practical application.
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 MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights