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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
Claims 1-7, 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat pub 20200138356 to Sharon et al. (previously presented) in view of US Pat pub 20200387267 to Fukino et al. and US Pat pub 20070038036 to Sellers et al.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references cited above, and further in view of view of WO2009112570 to Ballegaard (previously presented).
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Beginning on page 8 the applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot be performed in mind for including an input using a user interface comprising a coordinate system. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claim as recited includes a mental step as detailed below and therefore is directed towards an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Requiring a user input which includes a coordinate system, etc., are recited as at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity.
On page 9, the applicant recites that the user interface includes a coordinate system, which helps the user visualize complex emotional responses to assist he user in increasing precision of selecting a target emotion [] and cannot reasonably be construed an extra solution activity. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The user input including the coordinate system is considered to be a mere extra solution activity as it merely collects data for processing. Furthermore, such input device is shown to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see US 20200387267; US 20140172431). For at least the reasons cited above, and as detailed again below, the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-10 and 12 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 11 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “acquire a set of a target emotion, which is a target of emotion of an object person, and an actual emotion, which is actual emotion of the object person, wherein acquiring the target emotion []; identify a deviation tendency between the target emotion and the actual emotion with respect to the mental state, based on the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion; acquire records of the object person, wherein each of the records includes the set and a degree of stress of the object person for the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion; select the records having the degree of the stress equal to or larger than a threshold value and classify the selected records according to the deviation tendency”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite the additional limitations of “device”, “memory”, processor”, “receiving an input using a user interface comprising a coordinate system of a mental state, and the input includes a selection of a position within the coordinate system”, “display”, “output”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. 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)).
Claims 2-10, 13-18 depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “output mode”, “output a learning result”, “external input”, “sensor associated with the object person configured to capture biometric data [] includes at least one of heartbeat, perspiration, hormonal secretion, cerebral blood flow, blood pressure, body temperature, electromyogram, electrocardiogram, respiration rate, or pulse wave”, “sensor is separated from a body”, “coordinate system of the mental state comprises: a first axis indicating pleasure and displeasure, and a second axis indicating calm and arousal”, “quadrants defined by the first axis and the second axis”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
With regards to the learning limitation as provided in claims 8-9, it is noted that the act of inputting training data into a learning model (i.e., “falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations.
With regards to “generate a guidance instruction”; the claim does not require any specific treatment or guidance because the claim merely recites “a guidance instruction”. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim, there are no meaningful constrains on the guidance instruction step because it is not limited to any particular manner or type of guidance/treatment. See MPEP 2106.03(d)(2). Thus the step is understood as no more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a field of use.
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-18 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat pub 20200138356 to Sharon et al. (hereinafter “Sharon” – previously presented) in view of US Pat pub 20200387267 to Fukino et al. (hereinafter “Fukino”) and US Pat pub 20070038036 to Sellers et al. (hereinafter “Sellers”).
Regarding claims 1, 11-12. (Currently Amended) Sharon discloses an information processing device (e.g., para 0099 “system controller”, fig. 1) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (e.g., para 0069-0072 “data storage”); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (e.g., para 0068-0070 “processor”): acquire a set of a target emotion, which is a target of emotion of an object person, and actual emotion, which is actual emotion of the object person (e.g., para 0099-0100, 0105 “receive sensor data” is used to calculate emotional state, and “target emotional state determined on the basis of a range of …”); identify a deviation tendency between the target emotion and the actual emotion with respect to the mental state based on the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion (e.g., para 0045, 0095, etc., “[t]he measured emotional state of subject 14 may be compared with a target emotional state”); and output information regarding the deviation tendency (e.g., para 0044-0050, 0065, 0110, etc. “stimuli”).
But fails to disclose wherein acquiring the target emotion comprises receiving an input using a user interface comprising a coordinate system of a mental state, and the input includes a selection of a position within the coordinate system; and display [] a result of the classification on a display device.
Fukino, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is know to provide a terminal device to allow for displaying coordinate plane in the display together with a coordinate point corresponding to the current emotional state after the acquiring of the current emotional state has been performed (para 0048-0051) which includes acquiring a coordinate value of a coordinate point corresponding to the target emotional state that the user has selected through the coordinate plane and designating the acquired coordinate value as the target emotional state (para 0048). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sharon with the teachings of Fukino, because doing so would allow for including a user device which provides the predictable result of allowing the user to select their target emotional state.
Sharon as modified by Fukino renders the limitations above obvious but fails to disclose acquire records of the object person, wherein each of the records includes the set and a degree of stress of the object person for the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion; select the records having the degree of the stress equal to or larger than a threshold value and classify the selected records according to the deviation tendency.
Sellers, from a similar field of endeavor teaches a stress severity index for comparing a determined stress severity index to a threshold to determine if further action is desired to reduce stress (para 0001, 0003, 0020 showing categories of stress index). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sharon as modified by Fukino with the teachings of Sellers, because doing so would allow for determining stress level, and the predictable result of lowering stress.
Regarding claim 2. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to express the target emotion and the actual emotion by coordinate values in a coordinate system regarding the mental state (para 0038 “emotional state metrics may indicate the emotional state as a multidimensional (e.g., vector) value”), and identify the deviation tendency based on a vector specified by the coordinate value of the target emotion and the coordinate value of the actual emotion (para 0045, 0052, etc.).
Regarding claim 3. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine an output mode of the information regarding the deviation tendency based on magnitude of the vector (para 0038 “emotional state metrics may indicate the emotional state as a multidimensional (e.g., vector) value”).
Regarding claim 4. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to acquire event information related to the object person (para 0037, 0064 “environmental measurements”), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine an output mode of the information regarding the deviation tendency based on the event information (e.g., para 0044-0050, 0065, 0110, etc. “stimuli”).
Regarding claim 5. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 4, to wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output the information regarding the deviation tendency for each type of events indicated by the event information (see rejection of claims 4 and 1; para 0099 “emotional state modification method 100 may be executed continuously” therefore, output would be for each event/type of event as it occurs).
Regarding claim 6. (Currently Amended) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine an output mode of information regarding the deviation tendency, based on the degree of the stress (Fukino, para 0102, 0190-0194, etc. Sellers, para 0015, 0017).
Regarding claim 7. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to increase priority of outputting the deviation tendency regarding a set of the target emotion and the actual emotion, with increasing degree of acute stress of the object person regarding the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion (e.g., para 0044-0050, 0065, 0110, etc. “stimuli” – it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding “increase priority of outputting”; therefore, under its BRI, giving different stimuli for different scenarios to remedy a specific mood (i.e., reduce stress) as disclosed is considered as increasing/decreasing priority).
20. Regarding claim 10. Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the target emotion and the actual emotion by receiving an external input that specifies the target emotion and the actual emotion (it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding the external input, as written and under its BRI, any external input would read over the claimed limitation. Here, Sharon discloses various sensory inputs as demonstrated in fig. 1 which are used to determine the target emotion and the actual emotion).
Regarding claim 13. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine an average vector of deviation vectors based on the deviation tendency with respect to each of a plurality of types of events; generate a guidance instruction for the object person based on the average vector; and display the guidance instruction to the object person (Fukino, para 0099, 0200-0201, and see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the actual emotion using a sensor associated with the object person, wherein the sensor is configured to capture biometric data of the object person (Sharon, para 0059-0060).
Regarding claim 15. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the biometric data includes at least one of heartbeat, perspiration, hormonal secretion, cerebral blood flow, blood pressure, body temperature, electromyogram, electrocardiogram, respiration rate, or pulse wave (Sharon, para 0059-0060).
Regarding claim 16. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the sensor is separated from a body of the object person (Sharon, para 0058 “optical imaging sensor”).
Regarding claim 17. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the coordinate system of the mental state comprises: a first axis indicating pleasure and displeasure, and a second axis indicating calm and arousal (Fukino, para 0138-0139, etc.; it is understood that different emotions could be used to create various coordinate systems; MPEP KSR).
Regarding claim 18. (New) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the target emotion based on the input received (see rejection of claim 1, Fukino reference), using the user interface, within quadrants defined by the first axis and the second axis (Fukino, para 0138-0139, etc.; it is understood that different emotions could be used to create various coordinate systems, having less or more quadrants; MPEP KSR).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers as applied to claims above, and further in view of view of WO2009112570 to Ballegaard (previously presented).
Regarding claim 8. (Currently Amended) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to classify the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion based on stress of the object person and train the deviation tendency for each class using machine learning, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a training result of the deviation tendency (para 0049; and see rejection of claims 1 and 6) but fails to disclose determining degree of chronic stress.
Ballegaard, from a similar field of endeavor teaches method and apparatus to determine the chronic, immediate or acute stress level, the method provides the person with a tool for adjusting the stress state and thereby optimizing his/her performance (Description). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sharon with the teachings of Ballegaard because doing so would allow for determining the stress type and level which provides the predictable result of further allowing the user to adjust the stress state and thereby optimizing performance.
Regarding claim 9. (Currently Amended) Sharon as modified by Fukino and Sellers renders obvious the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to classify the set of the target emotion and the actual emotion based on stress of the object person and train the deviation tendency for each class using machine learning, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a learning result of the deviation tendency (para 0049; and see rejection of claims 1 and 6) but fails to disclose determining degree of acute stress.
Ballegaard, from a similar field of endeavor teaches method and apparatus to determine the chronic, immediate or acute stress level, the method provides the person with a tool for adjusting the stress state and thereby optimizing his/her performance (Description). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sharon with the teachings of Ballegaard because doing so would allow for determining the stress type and level which provides the predictable result of further allowing the user to adjust the stress state and thereby optimizing performance.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796