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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 12-14, 20, and 22 are withdrawn.
Claims 23-24 are cancelled.
Claims 25-26 are new.
Claims 1-3, 15, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claims 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 are pending.
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 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-11, 15-18, and 25-26), machine (claim 19). Accordingly, claims 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a
person;
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication
between the computer and the sensor device;
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction
for guiding a person into a resting state;
-executing, after the instruction acquisition processing that acquires n types (where n is an integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a meditation period that follows the rest period, thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period, the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal;
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of
physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest
period;
-executing determination processing that determines whether each of the n types of physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values;
-executing derivation processing that derives a score related to a meditative state of the person on the basis of the result of the determination processing; and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including the derived score.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because analyzing the physiological data to derive a score for a meditative state can all be performed in the human mind and using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Representative independent claim 26 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 26 recites:
An information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a
person;
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication
between the computer and the sensor device;
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction for guiding a person into a resting state;
-executing, after the instruction, acquisition processing that acquires n types (where n is an
integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a
meditation period that follows the rest period, thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition
processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period,
the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal;
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of
physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest
period;
-executing determination processing that determines whether each of the n types of
physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values;
-executing derivation processing that derives scores corresponding one-to-one to
mediative states of the person in each of multiple periods included in the mediation period on the
basis of the result of the determination processing in each of the multiple periods;
-generating a graph indicating a chronological change of the meditative states of the person in the meditation periods on the basis of the scores;
-deriving an overall score indicating a meditative state of the person over an entirety of the
meditation period on the basis of the scores; and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including
the graph and the overall score.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because analyzing the physiological data to derive a score for a meditative state can all be performed in the human mind and using pen and paper, output the score.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1
An information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a
Person (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 83);
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication
between the computer and the sensor device;
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction for guiding a person into a resting state (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 84);
-executing, after the instruction acquisition processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 80) that acquires n types (where n is an integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a meditation period that follows the rest period, thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period, the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 73-75, 80);
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of
physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest
period;
-executing determination processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 81) that determines whether each of the n types of physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values;
-executing derivation processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 82) that derives a score related to a meditative state of the person on the basis of the result of the determination processing; and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including the derived score (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 83).
Claim 26
An information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a
person (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 83);
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication
between the computer and the sensor device;
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction for guiding a person into a resting state (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 84);
-executing, after the instruction, acquisition processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 80) that acquires n types (where n is an integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a meditation period that follows the rest period, thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period, the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 73-75, 80);
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of
physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest
period;
-executing determination processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 81) that determines whether each of the n types of
physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values;
-executing derivation processing (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 76, 82) that derives scores corresponding one-to-one to
mediative states of the person in each of multiple periods included in the mediation period on the
basis of the result of the determination processing in each of the multiple periods;
-generating a graph indicating a chronological change of the meditative states of the person in the meditation periods on the basis of the scores;
-deriving an overall score indicating a meditative state of the person over an entirety of the
meditation period on the basis of the scores; and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including
the graph and the overall score (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 77, 83).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 15, 19, and 21 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 15, 19, and 21 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2-4: The claim specifies an equation for a specific physiological value and its threshold, which is a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Claim 5: The claim specifies the steps executed in multiple periods and outputting the score using a computer, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, 16: The claim specifies deriving overall score according to derived scores in each period and outputting the score, which is a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Claim 7: The claim specifies score expression, which is a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Claim 8: The claim specifies the periods, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 9: The claim specifies acquiring response data to questions, generating change in physiological state, and presenting the change using a computer, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10-11: The claim specifies the questionnaire and physiological information, which further narrows the mental process.
Claim 17: The claim specifies the overall score, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 18: The claim specifies derivation processing, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 25: The claim specifies the sensor and detection from the electrodes and calculating heartbeat interval with acquisition processing, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 26 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as acquire, output, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); derive a score, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-7, 9-10, 16, 18, and 25, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 5, 6, 9, 16 (acquire, output), 10 (asking questions), 25 (sensor detects) e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2-4, 7, 18, 25 e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 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.
Claims 1, 15, 19, 21, and 26 recite the limitation “a feedback image.” Examiner is unable to determine what exactly is a feedback image since the previous steps show no nexus to anything related to an image. Examiner asks the applicant to provide guidance. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets any image generated with the score to be a “feedback image.”
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.
Claims 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorshow et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0022820) in view of Venkatraman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0166197).
As per claim 1, Dorshow teaches an information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a
Person (Dorshow: figure 3; Instructions and an image to place sensor.);
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication
between the computer and the sensor device (Dorshow: figure 2; Establishing a Bluetooth connection and then providing an indication when paired.).
Dorshow does not explicitly teach the following, however, Venkatraman teaches an information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction
for guiding a person into a resting state (Venkatraman: para. 28; User prompt to perform a meditation exercise can be an audible prompt.);
-executing, after the instruction acquisition processing that acquires n types (where n is an integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a meditation period that follows the rest period (Venkatraman: para. 49; Measure physiological metrics during meditation exercise.), thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period, the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal (Venkatraman: para. 25; para. 51-52; A wearable device collects physiological data from biometric sensors. Measure physiological metrics at various intervals to get a baseline.);
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of
physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest
period (Venkatraman: para. 52; Determining a user’s physiological measure based on baseline and then calibrating it for comparison to a defined threshold.);
-executing determination processing that determines whether each of the n types of physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values (Venkatraman: para. 30);
-executing derivation processing that derives a score related to a meditative state of the person on the basis of the result of the determination processing (Venkatraman: para. 50, para. 54; Determining a performance score of a user during the meditation exercise.); and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including
outputting the derived score the derived score (Venkatraman: para. 57, para. 63; figure 8I-8J; Display performance score along with performance image.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Venkatraman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Venkatraman to the teachings of Dorshow would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying biofeedback during meditation exercise to Dorshow teaching proper application of sensors would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that aids individuals for proper meditation exercise (Venkatraman: para. 20).
As per claim 2, the method of claim 1 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-one of the n types of physiological measures is the heartbeat interval of the person (Venkatraman: para. 25; para. 42),
-the information processing method further comprising calculating the threshold value
corresponding to the heartbeat interval by processing a first value and a second value (Venkatraman: para. 42; measure heart rate and activity), the first value indicating the heartbeat interval of the person in a resting state (Venkatraman: para. 42, 45; Count the signal peaks.), the second value indicating a pre-determined parameter corresponding to heartbeat interval (Venkatraman: para. 42-43, 46), and
-the second value is greater than or equal to 1.0 and less than or equal to 1.2 (Venkatraman: para. 52).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 3, the method of claim 1 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-one of the n types of physiological measures is the heart rate variability of the person (Venkatraman: para. 25),
-the information processing method further comprising calculating the threshold value
corresponding to heart rate variability by processing a third value and a fourth value (Venkatraman: para.: para. 52; Calibrate the determination of the performance score to be more sensitive after comparing baseline to average users.), the third
value indicating the heart rate variability of the person in a resting state (Venkatraman: para. 52; Measure heart rate variability as a baseline at times other than meditation exercise.), the fourth value indicating a pre-determined parameter corresponding to heart rate variability (Venkatraman: para. 52; Determine higher than average by comparing it to other individuals.), and
-the fourth value is greater than or equal to 1.0 and less than or equal to 2.1 (Venkatraman: para. 52).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 4, the method of claim 1 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-one of the n types of physiological measures is the respiratory cycle of the person (Venkatraman: para. 25), and
-provided that γ denotes the respiratory cycle of the person in a resting state and z denotes the threshold value corresponding to the respiratory cycle (Venkatraman: para. 30),
-the threshold value z satisfies 1.0γ ≤ z ≤ 1.3γ (Venkatraman: para. 53).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 5, the method of claim 1 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-the acquisition processing, the determination processing, and the derivation processing are executed in each of multiple periods (Venkatraman: para. 63; Indicating physiological monitoring and calculating performance and progression over a number of meditation exercises.), and
-in the outputting of the score, the scores derived in each of the periods are arranged and displayed in chronological order (Venkatraman: figure 8J; para. 63; Showing animated or change with respect to previous progress of the performance indicator of past meditation exercises.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 6, the method of claim 5 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-in the derivation processing, an overall score is derived according to the scores derived in each of the periods (Venkatraman: figure 8J; para. 63), and
-the information processing method further includes outputting the overall score (Venkatraman: figure 8J; para. 63).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 7, the method of claim 5 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein in the derivation processing, the score expressed in n or (n+1) steps is derived depending on whether each of the n types of physiological measures exceeds the threshold value corresponding to that type of physiological measure (Venkatraman: para. 62-63; Gathering biometric measurements during the meditation exercises to compare to target information.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 8, the method of claim 5 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein each of the periods partially overlaps with the preceding period (Venkatraman: para. 62-63; Showing progression between each meditation exercise of inhale and exhale.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 9, the method of claim 1 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches further comprising:
-acquiring, after the person was in a state for meditation, response data indicating the result of a response by the person to a questionnaire related to psychological state (Venkatraman: para. 66; Prompt the user to input their assessment.);
-generating, on the basis of the acquired response data, psychological information indicating a change in the psychological state of the person after the person was in the state for meditation (Venkatraman: para. 74-75; Measure physiological metrics during meditation.); and
-presenting the generated psychological information to the person (Venkatraman: figure 7A-7B).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 10, the method of claim 9 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein
-the questionnaire is a questionnaire asking about the degree to which the person is relaxed state (Venkatraman: para. 66; Prompt the user to input their assessment, specifically stress level.), and
-the psychological information indicates a change in the degree of relaxation state (Venkatraman: para. 26; The wearable device calculates relaxation level based on physiological metrics.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 11, the method of claim 10 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein the questionnaire is a questionnaire asking about the degree of at least one psychological state of the person from among fatigue, nervousness, and exhilaration as the degree of relaxation (Venkatraman: para. 66), and
-the psychological information indicates a change in the degree of psychological state for each of the at least one psychological state (Venkatraman: para. 49).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
Claim 15 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 16 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 17, the method of claim 16 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein the overall score is the sum of the scores derived in each of the periods (Venkatraman: figure 8J; para. 63; Showing animated or change with respect to previous progress of the performance indicator of past meditation exercises.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
As per claim 18, the method of claim 15 is as described. Venkatraman further teaches wherein in the derivation processing, the score expressed in n or (n+1) steps is derived (Venkatraman: para. 54).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 1.
Claims 19 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 26, Dorshow teaches an information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing a display to display a target portion at which a sensor device is to be applied on a person (Dorshow: figure 3; Instructions and an image to place sensor.);
-confirming, after the target portion is displayed on the display, data communication between the computer and the sensor device (Dorshow: figure 2; Establishing a Bluetooth connection and then providing an indication when paired.).
Dorshow does not explicitly teach the following, however Venkatraman teaches an information processing method to be performed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
-causing, after the confirmation, a sound outputter to output, in a rest period, an instruction for guiding a person into a resting state (Venkatraman: para. 28; User prompt to perform a meditation exercise can be an audible prompt.);
-executing, after the instruction, acquisition processing that acquires n types (where n is an integer equal to or greater than 1) of physiological measures of the person in the rest period and a meditation period that follows the rest period (Venkatraman: para. 49; Measure physiological metrics during meditation exercise.), thereby the sensor device, in the acquisition processing, detects a signal from the target portion in the rest period and the meditation period, the n types of physiological measures corresponding to the signal (Venkatraman: para. 25; para. 51-52; A wearable device collects physiological data from biometric sensors. Measure physiological metrics at various intervals to get a baseline.);
-determining n types of threshold values corresponding one-to-one to the n types of physiological measures based on the n types of physiological measures acquired in the rest period (Venkatraman: para. 52; Determining a user’s physiological measure based on baseline and then calibrating it for comparison to a defined threshold.);
-executing determination processing that determines whether each of the n types of physiological measures acquired in the meditation period exceeds each of the threshold values (Venkatraman: para. 30);
-executing derivation processing that derives scores corresponding one-to-one to mediative states of the person in each of multiple periods included in the mediation period on the basis of the result of the determination processing in each of the multiple periods (Venkatraman: para. 50, para. 54; Determining a performance score of a user during the meditation exercise.);
-generating a graph indicating a chronological change of the meditative states of the person in the meditation periods on the basis of the scores (Venkatraman: figure 8D-8I);
-deriving an overall score indicating a meditative state of the person over an entirety of the meditation period on the basis of the scores (Venkatraman: figure 8I); and
-executing display control that causes the display to display a feedback image including the graph and the overall score (Venkatraman: figure 8D-8I).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Venkatraman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Venkatraman to the teachings of Dorshow would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying biofeedback during meditation exercise to Dorshow teaching proper application of sensors would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that aids individuals for proper meditation exercise (Venkatraman: para. 20).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorshow et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0022820) in view of Venkatraman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0166197) and further in view of Ahola et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,917,198).
As per claim 25, the method of claim 2 is as described. Dorshow and Venkatraman do not teach the following, however, Ahola teaches wherein
-the sensor includes at least a first electrode and a second electrode (Ahola: col. 2, 49-53; Electrodes),
-the sensor detects electric potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode as the signal (Ahola: col. 2, 49-53; Detect electric potential difference generated from the electrodes.), and
-the acquisition processing includes calculating the heartbeat interval of the person based on the electric potential difference (Ahola: col. 2, 49-64; Generate an ECG signal transferring ECG information, which includes heart rate.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ahola would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ahola to the teachings of Dorshow and Venkatraman would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying sensor detection from electrodes for heartbeat interval to Dorshow and Venkatraman teaching proper application of sensors and biofeedback during meditation exercise would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that provides a user-specific performance with specific calibrated metrics (Ahola: col. 1, 14-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that Examiner has not acknowledged claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119. Examiner states that the bibliographic data sheet acknowledges foreign priority claimed and 35 U.S.C. 119 conditions being met. Examiner apologizes for inadvertently not acknowledging the priority on form PTO-326.
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of features do not recite a mental process and cannot be performed in the mind. Applicant asserts that the steps require hardware and assistance of a special purpose computer programmed to apply the specialized algorithms. Examiner states that para. 117, 127 of the present specification provides calculation of the meditative state of a person and not a hardware or specialized algorithm. Examiner states that with the gathered data, a human mind using pen and paper can derive a score. Examiner fails to see how the paragraphs cited show specialized algorithms. Steps that may be performed in the mind, even if recited as being performed on a computer, are mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting, in holding that the claim recites an abstract idea, that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally, or with pen and paper”).
Applicant argues that para. 7 of the specification show specialized algorithm. Examiner disagrees. Para. 7 teaches generic computing elements used to carry out the invention in its generic manner.
Applicant argues that similar to Ex Parte Smith, the present specification describe advantages of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that para. 3 of the present specification addresses the technical problem where it is difficult to motivate the users to meditate repeatedly in an ongoing way. The present invention solves the problem associated with compliance in meditation, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. Furthermore, providing information to motivate users is arbitrary and not a technical problem with a technical solution. Examiner does acknowledge that the present invention gathers physiological measurements in a meditative state to be displayed, but that is not a technical solution, but rather using generic computer in its generic manner of gathering data, analyzing data, and displaying data, which are basic functions of a generic computer.
Examiner fails to see the practical application from a user seeing how well they meditated based on the derivation of score.
Applicant states that the present invention overcomes the problem of conventional apparatus which determines meditate state of a user incorrectly. Examiner fails to find objective evidence regarding the statement and how the present invention’s calculation is the correct meditative state. Examiner states that providing different thresholds for different people is merely manipulation of data and not a technical solution to a technical problem.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a particular, limited application of an information processing device. Examiner disagrees. The above rejection provides a detailed analysis of the claimed limitations and how they do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues that the present invention provides a functional improvement of a computer. The alleged improvement that The Applicant touts does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in receiving and processing information for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. The Applicant does not contend that it was necessary to develop innovative computer hardware/software in order to perform the steps recited in independent claims.
Applicant states that the claims are not well-understood, routine, nor conventional previously known to the healthcare process management industry. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently issued a precedential decision holding that the question of whether certain claim limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity raised a disputed factual issue, which precluded summary judgment that all of the claims at issue were not patent eligible. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The question of whether additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This is because a showing that additional elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or even that they lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102, is not by itself sufficient to establish that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities or elements to those in the relevant field. See MPEP § 2106.05. As the Federal Circuit explained: "[w]hether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369. Examiner states that the current specification provides a generic computer and it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems.
Applicant argues that the system provides an improved user interaction with the system, enhances accuracy of sensor placement and data acquisition, and reduces errors caused by user behavior or misunderstandings. Examiner states that Applicant fails to provide objective evidence and provides subjective opinion regarding the improvements.
Applicant argues that the invention improves signal fidelity and enhances the reliability of the acquired data. Examiner asks the Applicant to provide objective evidence regarding the improvement.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 15-19, 21, and 25-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching of the amended features and “determining n types of threshold values…”. Examiner states that a new art was brought in to teach the amended features and Examiner provides explanation and citation in Venkatraman. Venkatraman in para. 52 teaches determining a user’s physiological measure based on baseline and then calibrating it for comparison to a defined threshold, therefore teaching the limitation of determining threshold values corresponding to physiological measures acquired in different states.
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach deriving scores corresponding one-to-one to meditative states of the person in each of multiple periods included in the meditation period. Examiner disagrees. Para. 61 of Venkatraman states that the feedback information may be maintained on the image throughout the meditation exercise and providing real-time feedback information, therefore, teaching the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. – CN 114652330A – System for evaluating meditation training based on EEG signals.
Fuerst et al. – U.S. Patent No. 10,499,850 – Teaches a method for gathering sensor data to determine stress percentage based on breathing exercises.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681