CTNF 18/456,881 CTNF 83823 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. This action is in response to application filed on 8/23/2023, in which claims 1 – 16 was presented for examination. 3. Claims 1 – 16 are pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2023, 2/12/2024, and 11/21/2025 has been received and entered into the record. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “A method comprising using mental categories to provide artificial intelligence wherein an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm is enabling the artificial intelligence”. The context of this claim limitation does not provide an inventive concept. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 6. Claims 1 - 16 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claim 1, Step 1: C laim 1 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of performed by an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( Mathematical Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation) ). said information processing device performing the steps of: simultaneously collecting operational data originating from said context and human bio-signal data and human conduct data originating from said human participation with said context ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation and data gathering) ). identifying mental processes from at least one of said bio-signal data and said human conduct data, a mental process referring to an aspect of at least one of human cognition, emotion and individual mechanisms of human information processing ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation) ). assigning mental categories, a mental category referring to at least one of said mental processes associated with an aspect of at least one of said operational data and said human conduct data ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. organizing) ). and providing said artificial intelligence from applying said mental categories by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement) ). Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of performed by an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ) and providing said artificial intelligence from applying said mental categories by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( the step is directed to providing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)))) ). Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional element performed by an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). and providing said artificial intelligence from applying said mental categories by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence ( the step is directed evaluating and presenting information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)))) ). As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to collecting, evaluating, and presenting information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of identifying mental states from simultaneous mental processes, a mental state referring to a condition of at least one of human cognition, emotion and individual mechanisms of human information processing ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation) ). constructing a multi-dimensional mental state data space, wherein a respective mental process forms a dimension of said multi-dimensional mental state data space ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation) ). and assigning mental categories in said multi-dimensional mental state data space, a mental category referring to a particular subspace of said multi-dimensional mental state data space associated with aspects of at least one of said operational data and said conduct data ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of identifying mental states from simultaneous mental processes, a mental state referring to a condition of at least one of human cognition, emotion and individual mechanisms of human information processing ( the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). constructing a multi-dimensional mental state data space, wherein a respective mental process forms a dimension of said multi-dimensional mental state data space ( the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). and assigning mental categories in said multi-dimensional mental state data space, a mental category referring to a particular subspace of said multi-dimensional mental state data space associated with aspects of at least one of said operational data and said conduct data ( the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein said multi-dimensional mental state data space is constructed comprising psychological, cognitive, affective, neurophysiological, and otherwise human mind-related states, including but not limited to aspects of at least one of reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thought, concluding, interpreting, thinking, prediction, reflection, creativity, imagination, strategy, logic, moral judgement, empathy, agreement, confusion, understanding, comprehension, engagement, and satisfaction ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein said multi-dimensional mental state data space is constructed comprising psychological, cognitive, affective, neurophysiological, and otherwise human mind-related states, including but not limited to aspects of at least one of reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thought, concluding, interpreting, thinking, prediction, reflection, creativity, imagination, strategy, logic, moral judgement, empathy, agreement, confusion, understanding, comprehension, engagement, and satisfaction ( the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein said step of identifying mental processes comprises: identifying at least one of cognitive load, memory encoding, memory retrieval, perception, attention, error processing, emotion recognition, surprise, reward processing, pain, pattern recognition, intention, affect, valence, and arousal ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. judgement) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein said step of identifying mental processes comprises: - identifying at least one of cognitive load, memory encoding, memory retrieval, perception, attention, error processing, emotion recognition, surprise, reward processing, pain, pattern recognition, intention, affect, valence, and arousal ( the step is directed to judging information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of assigning at least one predetermined mental category, assigning at least one mental category based on at least one predetermined mental process; assigning at least one mental category based on at least one of selected human conduct data and selected operational data, and - assigning at least one mental category determined from a different context. ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of assigning at least one predetermined mental category, assigning at least one mental category based on at least one predetermined mental process, assigning at least one mental category based on at least one of selected human conduct data and selected operational data, and - assigning at least one mental category determined from a different context ( the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of herein said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence comprises labels, wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises enhancing at least one of said labels based on at least one mental category. ( Mathematical Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence comprises labels, wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises enhancing at least one of said labels based on at least one mental category. ( the step is directed to process information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises applying a collection of mental categories, wherein a collection of mental categories is at least one of a set of mental categories and a set of collections of mental categories ( Mathematical Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises applying a collection of mental categories, wherein a collection of mental categories is at least one of a set of mental categories and a set of collections of mental categories ( the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of simultaneously collecting human bio-signal data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor, said human bio-signal data comprising any of human bio-signals and measurements of human physiological structure and function of said human participant, including but not limited to at least one of direct and indirect measurements of electro cardiac activity, body temperature, eye movements, pupillometric, hemodynamic, electromyographic, electrodermal, oculomotor, respiratory, salivary, gastrointestinal, genital activity and brain activity ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation and data gathering) ). simultaneously collecting human bio-signal data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor, said human bio-signal data comprising any of human bio-signals and measurements of human physiological structure and function of said human participant, including but not limited to at least one of direct and indirect measurements of electro cardiac activity, body temperature, eye movements, pupillometric, hemodynamic, electromyographic, electrodermal, oculomotor, respiratory, salivary, gastrointestinal, genital activity and brain activity ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation and data gathering) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of simultaneously collecting human bio-signal data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor, said human bio-signal data comprising any of human bio-signals and measurements of human physiological structure and function of said human participant, including but not limited to at least one of direct and indirect measurements of electro cardiac activity, body temperature, eye movements, pupillometric, hemodynamic, electromyographic, electrodermal, oculomotor, respiratory, salivary, gastrointestinal, genital activity and brain activity ( the step is directed to information collection, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). simultaneously collecting human bio-signal data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor, said human bio-signal data comprising any of human bio-signals and measurements of human physiological structure and function of said human participant, including but not limited to at least one of direct and indirect measurements of electro cardiac activity, body temperature, eye movements, pupillometric, hemodynamic, electromyographic, electrodermal, oculomotor, respiratory, salivary, gastrointestinal, genital activity and brain activity ( the step is directed to information collection, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein brain activity data are processed by at least one brain-computer interface, in particular at least one passive brain-computer interface, operating at least one classifier responsive to implicit human brain activity indicative of at least one mental process. ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein brain activity data are processed by at least one brain-computer interface, in particular at least one passive brain-computer interface, operating at least one classifier responsive to implicit human brain activity indicative of at least one mental process ( the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device, in particular wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device to evoke at least one mental process, and more particular wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device to evoke at least one mental category ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device, in particular wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device to evoke at least one mental process, and more particular wherein operational data are provoked by said information processing device to evoke at least one mental category ( the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein said information processing device is arranged for repeating said steps referring to identifying mental processes, assigning mental categories, and providing said artificial intelligence each time based on a differing selection of said collected data, until a result of human participation with said context and a result of operating with said context by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence applying said mental categories match within predefined criteria ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. organizing) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein said information processing device is arranged for repeating said steps referring to identifying mental processes, assigning mental categories, and providing said artificial intelligence each time based on a differing selection of said collected data, until a result of human participation with said context and a result of operating with said context by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence applying said mental categories match within predefined criteria ( the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 12 is a method (real-time) claim correspond to method claim 1, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 12. Claim 13 recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 13 is a system claim correspond to method claim 1, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 13. Claim 14 recites a non-transient computer-readable storage medium, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 14 is a non-transient computer-readable storage medium claim correspond to method claim 1, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 14. As per claim 15, Step 1: C laim 1 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of using mental categories to provide artificial intelligence wherein an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm is enabling the artificial intelligence ( Mathematical Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation) ). Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of using mental categories to provide artificial intelligence wherein an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm is enabling the artificial intelligence ( the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ) Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional element using mental categories to provide artificial intelligence wherein an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm is enabling the artificial intelligence ( the step is directed evaluating and presenting information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)))) ). As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to evaluating and presenting information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of wherein the context is real-life context ( Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. observation) ). Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of wherein the context is real-life context ( the step is directed to observing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim s 1 and 4 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres et al (EEG-Based BCI Emotion Recognition: A Survey), in view of Coleman et al (US 2020/0218350 A1) . As per claim 1, Torres et al (EEG-Based BCI Emotion Recognition: A Survey) discloses, A method of providing artificial intelligence from human participation with a context (Abstract; “c omputing is an artificial intelligence area of study that recognizes, interprets, processes, and simulates human affects. The user’s emotional states can be sensed through electroencephalography (EEG)-based Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) devices ” and pg.1 lines 14 – 15; “ automatic emotion recognition will play an essential role in artificial intelligence entities designed for human interaction” ). said method performed by an information processing device operating at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence (pg.2 lines 15 – 16; “computational systems that applied algorithms for the detection and classification of emotions using EEG-based BCI devices ”) and providing said artificial intelligence from applying said mental categories by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence (pg.1 Introduction lines 12 – 15; “ Automatic EEG-based emotion recognition could also help enrich people’s relationships with their environment. ….., automatic emotion recognition will play an essential role in artificial intelligence entities designed for human interaction ” and pg.2 lines 15 – 16; “detection and classification of emotions using EEG-based BCI devices ). Torres does not specifically disclose said information processing device performing the steps of: simultaneously collecting operational data originating from said context and human bio-signal data and human conduct data originating from said human participation with said context; - identifying mental processes from at least one of said bio-signal data and said human conduct data, a mental process referring to an aspect of at least one of human cognition, emotion and individual mechanisms of human information processing; assigning mental categories, a mental category referring to at least one of said mental processes associated with an aspect of at least one of said operational data and said human conduct data. However, Coleman et al (US 2020/0218350 A1) in an analogous art discloses, said information processing device performing the steps of: simultaneously collecting operational data originating from said context and human bio-signal data and human conduct data originating from said human participation with said context (para.[0008]; “ enables the collection of useful bio-signal data and also non-bio-signal data in a way that supports real time or near real time analysis of both data sets ”, para.[0046]; “ machine learning systems and methods may be utilized in order to improve the efficiency of feature extraction and classification ”, and para.[0173]; “ user's profile consists of brain signatures unique to each user that have been derived by the pipelines using real-time behavioral and environmental information captured simultaneously (and time locked) with EEG, as well as the user's classification of the user's current mood, emotion, opinion, etc., at the time the EEG data is acquired ”). identifying mental processes from at least one of said bio-signal data and said human conduct data (para.[0013]; “ collect, analyze and associate particular bio-signal and non-bio-signal data with specific mental states for both individuals and groups ”). a mental process referring to an aspect of at least one of human cognition, emotion and individual mechanisms of human information processing (para.[0007]; “ system may identify characteristics of a user's brain state to determine the user's cognitive or emotional state ”, para.[0165]; “ determining a physical or emotional state of an individual user, etc.) ” and para.[0198]; “ User A is using the cloud platform to estimate the user's bio state for the purpose of tracking the user's cognitive and affective state ”). assigning mental categories, a mental category referring to at least one of said mental processes associated with an aspect of at least one of said operational data and said human conduct data (para.[0064]; “ preprocessed data to extract features from the signal ….. aid in the classification of the collected data”, para.[0173]; “ classification of the user's current mood, emotion, opinion, etc., at the time the EEG data is acquired ”, para.[0329]; “Physical and mental state classification and activity classification may be implemented by the system platform ”, para.[0243]; “ classification corresponds with a particular emotion or physical movement experienced at the time the bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data was collected ”). and providing said artificial intelligence from applying said mental categories by said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence (NOTE: para.[0066]; “ Feature extraction and classification may be performed by machine learning systems of the system platform ”, para.[0174]; “ a semi-supervised machine learning process to discover unique brain signatures ”, and para.[0176]; “ Machine learning is used to discover brain-signatures on a per person ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for measuring and analyzing human brain data, thereby enabling users to learn how to control their brainwaves and for automatic execution of action or provision of information. As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein said step of identifying mental processes comprises: identifying at least one of cognitive load, memory encoding, memory retrieval, perception, attention, error processing, emotion recognition, surprise, reward processing, pain, pattern recognition, intention, affect, valence, and arousal (para.[0487]; “ brainwave headset which is monitoring their state of attention”, para.[0496]; “ameliorating attention deficit disorder ("ADD") or ADHD symptomology”, para.[0253]; “physiological measure that is related to emotional arousal, anxiety, time pressure strain and focused attention”, and para.[0359]; “These algorithms, for example, may identify patterns common to many users. More than one machine learning algorithm can be stored in the algorithm collector 206 and multiple algorithms may be supplied to the analyzer”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for identifying various mental information for classifying human mental state. As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein said step of assigning mental categories comprises at least one of: assigning at least one predetermined mental category (para.[0173]; “ classification of the user's current mood, emotion, opinion, etc., at the time the EEG data is acquired ”, para.[0329]; “Physical and mental state classification and activity classification may be implemented by the system platform ”). assigning at least one mental category based on at least one predetermined mental process (para.[0173]; “ classification of the user's current mood, emotion, opinion, etc., at the time the EEG data is acquired ”, para.[0329]; “Physical and mental state classification and activity classification may be implemented by the system platform ”). assigning at least one mental category based on at least one of selected human conduct data and selected operational data and assigning at least one mental category determined from a different context (para.[0017]; “ receiving from the at least one computer server a user response classification of at least part of the time-coded bio-signal data based on an identified pattern ” and para.[0173]; “ classification of the user's current mood, emotion, opinion, etc., at the time the EEG data is acquired ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for identifying and classifying human mental state into different categories. As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein said at least one data processing algorithm enabling artificial intelligence comprises labels, wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises enhancing at least one of said labels based on at least one mental category (para.[0077]; “ Machine Learning is applied to this data for the classification of brain states through the use of labeled data to train algorithms ” and para.[0249]; “ non-EEG data to help label EEG data acquired from users undergoing a specific activity or exercise. Nonbiological and other biological features across a number of users may be analyzed using pattern discovery, cluster analysis ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for classifying human mental state into different categories. As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein said step of providing said artificial intelligence comprises applying a collection of mental categories, wherein a collection of mental categories is at least one of a set of mental categories and a set of collections of mental categories (para.[0150]; “ classification may provide an indication of the mental state of the user (e.g. a meditative state). Various algorithms 116 can be used to classify the features ” and para.[0249]; “ non-EEG data to help label EEG data acquired from users undergoing a specific activity or exercise. Nonbiological and other biological features across a number of users may be analyzed using pattern discovery, cluster analysis ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for classifying human mental state into different categories. As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein said step of simultaneously collecting operational, human bio-signal and human conduct data (para.[0008]; “ enables the collection of useful bio-signal data and also non-bio-signal data in a way that supports real time or near real time analysis of both data sets ”) comprises: - simultaneously collecting human bio-signal data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor (para.[0008]; “ enables the collection of useful bio-signal data and also non-bio-signal data in a way that supports real time or near real time analysis of both data sets ” and para.[0013]; “ collect, analyze and associate particular bio-signal and non-bio-signal data with specific mental states for both individuals and groups ”). said human bio-signal data comprising any of human bio-signals and measurements of human physiological structure and function of said human participant, including but not limited to at least one of direct and indirect measurements of electro cardiac activity, body temperature, eye movements, pupillometric, hemodynamic, electromyographic, electrodermal, oculomotor, respiratory, salivary, gastrointestinal, genital activity and brain activity (para.[0250]; “ Biological features such as Heart Rate Variability, accelerometer readings of motion, level of muscle tension recorded by analyzing EMG signals of facial or body muscles as well as eye movement are recorded ”, and para.[0333]; “ atmospheric pressure; Blood glucose; Arterial blood pressure; Electrocardiography; Temperature; Respiratory rate; Pulse oximetry; environmental (e.g. thermometer); rain activity measurement devices (e.g. EEG for FNIRS); cardiovascular activity through ECG or pulse oxymetry; muscle activity using EMG; breath measurement using strain sensors; skin conductance; body motion using inertial sensors such as gyroscope and accelerometer ”). simultaneously collecting human conduct data from at least one of an individual and a group of individuals participating with said context sensed by at least one sensor (para.[0013]; “ collect, analyze and associate particular bio-signal and non-bio-signal data with specific mental states for both individuals and groups ”). said human conduct data comprising any of human expressions, communication and physical activity by said human participant, including but not limited to input modalities comprising a keyboard, push buttons, switches, touch screen, mouse, joystick, electronic pencil/stylus, laser pointer, motion controller, game controller, microphones, cameras, thermal imagers, motion capture devices, pressure sensors, and gyroscopes (para.[0071]; “r eal-time brainstate classification to enable BCI in games or other applications; transmitting real-time brain-state data to other users when playing a game to enable multi-user games ” and para.[0333]; “ skin conductance; body motion using inertial sensors such as gyroscope and accelerometer; environmental sound (microphone); environmental visuals (video and images); media players; geographical based context; tasked based context; telephone calls; email reading and composition; and internet searching and reading ”). and simultaneously collecting operational data comprising at least one of physical data and virtual data originating from said context (para.[0329]; “ Physical and mental state classification and activity classification may be implemented by the system platform ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate bio-signal data and non-bio-signal data of the system of Coleman into emotional state classification of the system Torres for measuring and analyzing human brain data, thereby enabling users to learn how to control their brainwaves and automatic execution of action or provision of information. As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further Coleman et al. (US 2020/0218350 A1) discloses, wherein brain activity data are processed by at least one brain-computer interface, in particular at least one passive brain-computer interface, operating at least one classifier responsive to implicit human brain activity indicative of at least one mental process (para.[0005]; “ brain computer interfaces (“BCI”) have been developed that allow users to control devices and computers using brainwave signals ”, para.[0446]; “ identification of brain states, specific to the AR context, that utilize context information from the inertial tracking and the computer vision processing done ”, and para.[0521]; “ brain computer interface linking to one or more sensors that include at least one brain wave sensor and optional