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 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 16 and 17 under double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5-8 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejection of claims 5-8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the independent claim 1 is allowable for its similarity to CardioNet. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. CardioNet required determining “beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity, and taking it into account its variability …”. This is not being claimed here. As written, the claim merely provides monitoring data comprising a plurality of seconds within a day, determining awake and sedentary status, determining HRV for a period the user is awake/sedentary and comparing it to a threshold to determine an acute stress level. The claim, as currently written, does not provide any limitations that would prevent the claimed calculation to be performed in mind. Furthermore, to have a technological improvement, the additional elements need to be improved. Here, the mentioned improvements are provided in the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 14, the applicant argues that the reference to Sivan does not disclose or suggest “determining that the user is sedentary throughout the time interval based at least in part on the heart rate data satisfying a heart rate threshold value and the motion data satisfying a motion threshold value”. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claimed limitation as written states “determining that the use is awake and that the user is sedentary [] at least in part on the heart rate data satisfying a heart rate threshold value and the motion data satisfying a motion threshold value”. As written, and when read under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim provides two determinations (i.e., 1. the user is awake, and 2. that the user is sedentary) which are based on two parameters (i.e., 1. heart rate data satisfying a heart rate threshold value, and 2. motion data satisfying a motion threshold value). In other words, the claimed limitation does not recite that each determination to be based on both parameters the applicant suggests.
Beginning on page 15, the applicant argues that Selvaraj does not disclose the day-time BHR variability and a night-time BHR variability to be based on the determining that the user is awake. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Selvaraj states “automatically detecting the bedtime and night-time periods when the user is likely sleeping.” This is understood to teach or at least suggest determining and distinguishing day and night (awake vs sleep) periods since Selvaraj intends to process the segments separately.
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 1-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claim 1-13 and 15 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 16-17 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, 16 and 17 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “acquiring physiological data”, “determining that the user is awake and that the user is sedentary”, “determining a daytime heart rate variability (HRV) value”, “comparing”, “determining an acute stress”. 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, 16 and 17 recite the additional limitations of “wearable device”, “GUI”, 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 2-15 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 various limitations (i.e., comparing, classifying, using plurality of users, normalizing data, scaling the normalized data, classifying the time interval, etc.) which are mere data processing and displaying the result of the abstract idea. Dependent claims 5-8 recite “a machine learning model” which falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations. The dependent claims further recite the limitations “GUI”, “user device”, “visual representation”, “wearable device”, “wearable ring”, 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)).
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 1-13, 15-17 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, 4 and 12-13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20180310867 to Sivan et al. (hereinafter “Sivan”) in view of US Pat No. 10582862 to Selvaraj.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17. Sivan discloses a method for measuring stress of a user (e.g., para 0072-etc., “stress monitoring process 300”), comprising: acquiring physiological data from the user via a wearable device throughout a time interval (para 0073 “obtain information acquired by the sensors 230 over a given period of time”) that comprises a plurality of seconds, minutes, or hours within a day (para 0073 “minutes”), the physiological data comprising at least heart rate data and motion data (para 0073 “the information enabling determination of the HRV”, para 0083 “obtain an indication of a motion status of the wireless wearable electronic device 100”); determining that the user is sedentary throughout the time interval based at least in part on the heart rate data satisfying a heart rate threshold value and the motion data satisfying a motion threshold value (para 0083 “only if the indication indicates that the wireless wearable electronic device 100 is not moving”—the sensors acquire the information” – the claim does not provide any details on how “sedentary” is defined or detected, therefore, under its BRI, determining that the user is not moving is understood to include when the user is sedentary); determining a daytime heart rate variability (HRV) value of the user for the time interval based at least in part on determining that the user was sedentary throughout the time interval (para 0083 “only if the indication indicates that the wireless wearable electronic device 100 is not moving”, para 0085, 0087-0088 “calculating a HRV”); comparing the daytime HRV value of the user to baseline daytime HRV data associated with the user (para 0074-0075), the baseline daytime HRV data determined based on additional physiological data acquired from the user throughout a reference time interval (it is noted that the claim does not provide any details on the “additional physiological data” and whether they are the same or different type of physiological data previously acquired. Therefore, under its BRI, any physiological data acquired would read over the claimed limitation) comprising a plurality of days prior to the time interval, wherein the baseline daytime HRV data is collected during periods of the reference time interval that the user was sedentary (para 0074-0075 “The threshold can be a general pre-determined threshold, or it can be a pre-determined user-specific threshold, or it can be a dynamic user-specific threshold (e.g. calculated based on previous stress scores calculated for the specific user).” It is understood that this is a continuous monitoring system and therefore, it is understood that data would be continued to be used and processed for days/weeks); determining an stress level of the user during the time interval based at least in part on comparing the daytime HRV value with the baseline daytime HRV data, the stress level associated with a relative amount of stress experienced by the user throughout the time interval (para 0074 “stress score”); and displaying, to the user via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device, a visual representation of the acute stress level (para 0077 “present stress score).
Sivan fails to disclose determining the daytime HRV to be based at least in part determining that the user was awake and wherein the stress is acute stress.
Selvaraj, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining basal heart rate and HRV time series, extracting features during day to determine health risk factors including acute stress using a model which distinguishes day and night conditions since HRV is known to be different during the day and night (i.e., during awake and sleep) (Col. 6, lines 65-67, Col 7, ln 15-50). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sivan with the teachings of Selvaraj to provide the predictable result of increasing accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the heart rate data satisfies one or more measurement quality criteria, wherein determining the daytime HRV value is based at least in part on the heart rate data satisfying the one or more measurement quality criteria (Selvaraj, “low pass filter”).
Regarding claim 12, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second daytime HRV value of the user based at least in part on acquiring second physiological data throughout a second time interval; comparing the second daytime HRV value to the baseline daytime HRV data; determining a second acute stress level of the user during the second time interval based at least in part on comparing the second daytime HRV value with the baseline daytime HRV data; and displaying, to the user via the GUI of the user device, a second visual representation of the second acute stress level (see rejection of claim 1, para 0082 process 300 being repeatedly performed).
Regarding claim 13, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein the second visual representation indicates a relative change between the acute stress level associated with the time interval and the second acute stress level associated with the second time interval (see rejection of claim 12, para 0082 process 300 being repeatedly performed, Selvaraj fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device (Sivan, para 0046 “worn on user’s finger”).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivan in view of Selvaraj as applied to claims 1, 4, 12-17 above, and further in view of US Pat Pub 20160027324 to Wisbey et al. (hereinafter “Wisbey”).
Regarding claim 9, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: classifying the time interval as one of a stressful period, or a neutral period based at least in part on the acute stress level satisfying a stress threshold metric, or both, wherein displaying the visual representation of the acute stress level is based at least in part on the classifying (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to disclose classifying a recovery period based on a recovery threshold metric.
Wisbey, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches using the HRV to calculate a recovery score which indicates the user’s physical condition and aptitude for further physical activity for the current day (para 0043). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sivan as modified by Selvaraj with the teachings of Wisbey to provide the predictable result of calculating the recovery score.
Regarding claim 10, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj and Wisbey renders obvious the method of claim 9, the method further comprising: scaling the acute stress level based at least in part on a maximum HRV value of the user, a minimum HRV value of the user, or both, wherein classifying the time interval is based at least in part on the scaling (Selvaraj, para 0074 high/low HRV, 0088 “maximal HRV”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivan in view of Selvaraj as applied to claims 1, 4, 12-17 above, and further in view of US Pat Pub 20170132946 to Kinnunen et al. (hereinafter “Kinnunen”).
Regarding claim 11, Sivan as modified by Selvaraj renders obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, via the GUI of the user device, feedback to the user (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to disclose comprising instructions for modifying one or more behaviors of the user, the one or more behaviors corresponding to the acute stress level of the user.
Kinnunen, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches providing feedback and instruction that may help the individual to efficiently recover from physical and mental load (i.e., stress) to improve performance level (para 0004, 0006-0007). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Sivan as modified by Selvaraj with the teachings of Kinnunen to provide the predictable result of reducing stress and improving 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