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 .
Remarks
Claims 29-31 were unintentionally left out of the prosecution due to being presented on a separate page by the office and incorrectly labeled. The Examiner would like to thank the applicant and their attorney for brining this matter to the Examiner’s attention. To provide sufficient time for review, this action will replace the previous mailed action (final rejection mailed on 02/13/2026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 8, the applicant argues that the mentioned limitation cannot be performed in mind. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claim as presented recites a limitation that can be performed in mind; therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
Beginning on page 9, the applicant argues that the claim as a whole is integrated into a practical application. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claim further recites various elements which are mere extra solution activity and therefore does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Beginning on page 11, the applicant argues that the provides an improvement and is directed to patentable subject matter. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The mentioned elements are further recited at a high level of generality and are ell-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. Furthermore, in order to have a technological improvement, the additional elements need to be improved. Here, the improvement is in the abstract idea.
Regarding "providing a feedback mechanism that modifies CR content based on the stress level, wherein modifying XR content comprises adjusting visual or auditory attributes associated with the XR environment". Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the additional element does not require any specific treatment or therapy because the claim merely recites "providing feedback". For instance, the feedback could be any content that could adjust visual or auditory attributes.
The newly amended limitation “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and is considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the recited “sensor”, taken individually and in combination, 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.
See details of the 101 rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wild (20180303396 – previously presented) in view of Jain (20170071551) for claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-20, 26 and 28. Further in view of Aimone (US20190384392– previously presented) for claims 7-9 and 11. See details below.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, 26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 26 and 28 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 26 and 28 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “determining a context of the experience, including generating a scene understanding [], determining a stress level of the user during a portion of the experience based on the obtained physiological data and the context of the experience; and providing a feedback mechanism based on the stress level”. 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, 26 and 28 recite the additional limitations of “device”, “sensor”, “processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, 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.
In addition to the abstract idea in the independent claim, the claim recites the additional elements of "providing a feedback mechanism that modifies CR content based on the stress level, wherein modifying XR content comprises adjusting visual or auditory attributes associated with the XR environment". Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the additional element does not require any specific treatment or therapy because the claim merely recites "providing feedback". For instance, the feedback could be any content that could adjust visual or auditory attributes.
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 2-3, 5-9, 11-20 depend on claims 1, 26 and 28-31. 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 “sensor data”, “providing notification”, “customizing content”, “sensor”, “image data”, “obtaining [] physiological data”, “updating the stress level”, “obtaining, using a sensor, pupillary movement or eye gaze and EDA or heart rate”, “identifying the portion of the experience associated with the stress”, 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)).
Regarding “machine learning-based classification technique” of claim 18, it is noted that the act of inputting training data into a learning model and using learning models fall under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, 26 and 28 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 12-20, 26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20180303396 to Wild et al. (hereinafter “Wild”) in view of US Pat Pub no. 20170071551 to Jain et al. (hereinafter “Jain”).
Regarding claims 1, 26 and 28. (Original) Wild discloses a method of cognitive state assessment, device comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (abstract, para 0014, fig. 1), the method comprising: at a device comprising a processor (para 0042, fig. 1) and a sensor (para 0170-0172 “sensors”): obtaining physiological data associated with a user (para 0023, 0031, etc.) during an experience in an environment (para 0017 “information indicative of at least one of a stress modifying circumstance and stress modifying event”, 0019, 0128, , 0167, 0174, etc.); determining a context of the experience based on sensor data of the environment, including generating, from image data, a scene understanding of the environment (id, also para 0174-0187 discussing various behavioural information collection tools, para 0019 “the stress modifying circumstance and the stress modifying event”, it is noted that the claim as written does not require any content to be presented to the user, rather, under its BRI, it only requires determining the context separate from a content); determining a stress level of the user during a portion of the experience based on the obtained physiological data and the context of the experience (para 0008, 0017, 0019-0022, etc.); and providing a feedback mechanism based on the stress level (para 0021-0022 or para 0128-0131 “stress trajectory”). But fails to disclose, providing during a presentation of an extended reality (XR) environment, a feedback mechanism that modifies XR content based on the stress level, wherein modifying XR content comprises adjusting visual or auditory attributes associated with an XR environment.
Jain, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to utilize a virtual reality device or game console that can adjust its content based on the user's stress level (e.g., adjust the dram level of the soundtrack or adjust the game's difficulty) (para 0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wild with the teachings of Jain, because doing so would provide the predictable result of modifying content based on the user’s stress level to improve user’s interaction and avoid fatigue (para 0045).
Regarding claim 2. (Original) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein determining a stress level of the user during the portion of the experience further comprises determining a type of stress of the user based on the sensor data, and providing the feedback mechanism during the experience is further based on the type of stress (para 0097, 0126-0127, 0137).
Regarding claim 3. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a notification to the user based on the stress level; and customizing content included in the experience based on the stress level of the user (0056-0057, 0130 “Once the user submits stress data and personal data to the population stress profiler, it can advise how their stress scores are likely to change in the future i.e. a ‘stress trajectory’. The user can use this information to implement stress management interventions and discern the likely effects these will have on stress. As the user submits further stress data and personal data, their stress trajectory will be updated.”).
Regarding claim 5. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the stress level is a first stress level, the method further comprising: obtaining, using a sensor, first physiological data associated with a physiological response of the user to the feedback mechanism; and determining a second stress level of the user based on the physiological response of the user to the feedback mechanism (para 0126 “As the user submits further stress data and personal data, their stress trajectory will be updated” – the system/method continues to operate near real-time (para 0126)).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 5, further comprising: assessing the second stress level of the user based on the physiological response of the user to the feedback mechanism; and determining whether the feedback mechanism reduced stress of the user by comparing the second stress level to the first stress level (para 0126-0127).
Regarding claim 12. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises identifying an attribute of the environment separate from content being presented to the user (para 0019, it is noted that the claim as written does not require any content to be presented to the user, rather, under its BRI, it only requires determining the context separate from a content).
Regarding claim 13. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises determining that a stimulus in the environment is associated with the stress level of the user, wherein the stimulus is separate from content being presented (para 0019 “the stress modifying circumstance and the stress modifying event”, it is noted that the claim as written does not require any content to be presented to the user, rather, under its BRI, it only requires determining the context separate from a content).
Regarding claim 14. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes location data of the user (para 0034, “GPS”), and determining the context of the experience includes determining a location of the user within the environment based on the location data (para 0034, 0155).
Regarding claim 15. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises determining an activity of the user based on a user's schedule (para 0019, 0101 “voting schedule”, “date, time and public holidays” , 0169).
Regarding claim 16. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises determining that the user is consuming food (para 0016 “eating habit information” 0034, 0169 “food choice”).
Regarding claim 17. (Currently Amended) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 16, wherein the stress level and the feedback mechanism are determined based on the user consuming food (para 0016 “eating habit information” 0034, 0169 “food choice”; (para 0126 “As the user submits further stress data and personal data, their stress trajectory will be updated” – the system/method continues to operate near real-time (para 0126)).
Regarding claim 18. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the physiological data includes at least one of skin temperature, respiration, photoplethysmogram (PPG), electrodermal activity (EDA), eye gaze tracking, and pupillary movement that is associated with the user (para 0031, 0034).
Regarding claim 19. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the stress level is assessed using a statistical or machine learning-based classification technique (para 0039).
Regarding claim 20. (Previously Presented) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the portion of the experience associated with stress level (para 0017, 0221 “correlating”).
Regarding claim 29. (New) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, using the sensor and within a predetermined time following the feedback mechanism, physiological data associated with a physiological response of the user to the feedback mechanism; and updating the stress level based on the physiological response (Jain, para 0050, 0167, etc. continuously monitoring the stress level).
Claim(s) 7-9, 11 and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild in view of Jain as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-20, 26 and 28-29 above, and further in view of US 20190384392 to Aimone et al. (hereinafter “Aimone” – previously presented).
Regarding claim 7. (Previously Presented) Kim discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the scene understanding comprises visual or auditory attributes of the environment; and wherein determining the context of the experience based on the scene understanding of the environment.
Aimone, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining the user's state and context through sensors and user input (para 0039) by recording audio or video data, or photos, and tagged with emotional or brain state and used to add contextual information about the user's state at the time of initial recording of the media, or upon reviewing (para 0118). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wild and Jain with the teachings of Aimone, to provide the predictable result of improving contextual information about the user's state by tagging the data (para 0139).
Regarding claim 8. (Original) Kim as modified by Jain and Aimone renders obvious the method of claim 7, wherein generating the scene understanding is based at least on performing semantic segmentation of the image data and detecting one or more objects within the environment based on the semantic segmentation (Aimone, para 0138 gives an example of identifying the content of the photo and correlating it with the state of mind to improve feedback).
Regarding claim 9. (Previously Presented) Kim as modified by Jain and Aimone renders obvious method of claim 7, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises determining an activity of the user or a location of the user in a physical environment based on the scene understanding of the environment (para 0034, “generating location information”; Aimone, para 0182).
Regarding claim 11. (Previously Presented) Kim as modified by Jain and Aimone renders obvious method of claim 7, wherein determining the context of the experience comprises determining that an object is near the user in a physical environment based on the scene understanding (Aimone, para 0138, 0182, etc.).
Regarding claim 30. (New) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the physiological data comprises obtaining, using a sensor, heart rate (Wild, para 0031) but fails to disclose wherein obtaining the physiological data comprises obtaining, using a sensor, pupillary movement or eye gaze tracking associated with the user and electrodermal activity (EDA) or heart rate associated with the user.
Aimone, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches monitoring the eye for movement and gaze fixation and heart rate, etc. via various sensors provided on a wearable device (para 0050, 0142-0143, 0157) to determine changes to baseline (para 0225). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wild and Jain with the teachings of Aimone, to provide the predictable result of monitoring changes to the baseline in determining stress levels.
Regarding claim 31. (New) Wild as modified by Jain renders obvious the method of claim 1, Wild discloses the stress profiler can be used to collect and process general data and help to identify the cause of stress and correlations between stress and aspects of the general data (para 0097), but fails to disclose wherein identifying the portion of the experience associated with the stress level comprises using the scene understanding and the physiological data to determine a portion of the XR content that is correlated with the stress level.
Aimone, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining the user's state and context through sensors and user input (para 0039) by recording audio or video data, or photos, and tagged with emotional or brain state and used to add contextual information about the user's state at the time of initial recording of the media, or upon reviewing (para 0118). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wild and Jain with the teachings of Aimone, to provide the predictable result of improving contextual information about the user's state by tagging the data (para 0139).
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
Prosecution Insights