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 .
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 13 recites “[a] computer readable medium comprising instructions that when executed on a processor…,” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software per se as the medium is not restricted to be non-transitory and the processor is not positively recited.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claims 1-11 are drawn to a method for evaluating and forecasting cognitive function metrics based on emotional intelligence characteristics of an individual, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 12 is drawn to a system for evaluating and forecasting cognitive function metrics based on emotional intelligence characteristics of an individual which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 13 is drawn to a “computer readable medium,” which does not distinguish Claim 13from a transitory medium or article of manufacture, and hence Claim 13 does not fall within the four statutory categories.
Claims 1 (Group I) recite: a computer implemented method for evaluating and forecasting cognitive function metrics based on emotional intelligence characteristics of an individual, the computer implemented method comprising:
obtaining, from a wearable sensor (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), first physiology data associated with lifestyle activities of a user, the lifestyle activities comprising day to day activities, the first physiology data obtained over a plurality of days;
obtaining, via at least one user device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), user reported lifestyle data, the user reported lifestyle data comprising user reported data obtained over a plurality of days;
computing, using at least one of the first physiology data and the user reported lifestyle data, at least one lifestyle metric;
obtaining, from the wearable sensor (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), second physiology data associated with specific task performance activities of a user, wherein the task performance activities are different than the lifestyle activities, wherein the second physiology data associated with specific task performance activities is obtained during a baseline condition and a plurality of stimulus conditions;
computing, using the second physiology data, at least one cognitive performance metric;
obtaining, via at least one user device (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), emotional intelligence data, the emotional intelligence data comprising user responses to a plurality of questions;
computing, using the emotional intelligence data, at least one emotional intelligence metric;
computing at least one cognitive function metric using the at least one lifestyle metric, the at least one cognitive function metric and the at least one emotional intelligence metric; and
providing an indication of the at least one cognitive function metric to at least one of the user or at least one member of a team of individuals associated with the user.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the method of organizing human activity are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claims 12 and 13 is identical as the abstract idea for Claims 1-11 (Group I), because the only difference between the claims is they are directed towards different categories of inventions (Examiner notes that claim 13 is not within a statutory category.).
Dependent Claims 2-11 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites wherein the first physiology data comprises at least one of sleep data, heart rate data, and caloric expenditure data, Claim 3 recites wherein the user reported lifestyle data comprises at least one of diet data and waste excretion data, Claim 4 recites wherein the at least one lifestyle metric comprises at least one of a passive lifestyle metric, an active lifestyle metric, and a biofeedback lifestyle metric, Claim 5 recites wherein the at least one cognitive performance metric comprises at least one of planning, anticipation, risk management, focus, memory, and connectivity, Claim 6 recites wherein the at least one emotional intelligence metric comprises at least one of motivation, self awareness, interpersonal skill, self regulation, adaptability, and facial recognition, Claim 7 recites wherein the at least one cognitive function metric reflects a projected productivity capacity for the user, Claim 8 recites wherein providing an indication of cognitive function comprises providing an indication of reduced cognitive indicative of an expected reduced productivity capacity, Claim 9 recites adjusting the at least one emotional intelligence metric computed from user reported emotional intelligence data based on the lifestyle metric to account for user bias in self-reported data, Claim 10 recites computing a projected team performance metric by combining the computed metrics for a plurality of users, Claim 11 recites wherein the projected team performance metric is computed by applying different weighting factors to the computed metrics for the plurality of users based on the role or position of the user within the team, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 12 and 13.
Furthermore, Claims 1-13 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of user device, wearable sensor, computing processor, memory, and computer readable medium, which amounts to merely invoking a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea or using sensors as intended, e.g. see paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0079] and [0085] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0030], [0032], [0079] and [0085] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. user device, wearable sensor, computing processor, memory, and computer readable medium) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Dependent Claims 2-11 include other limitations, but none of these recite any additional elements beyond those already found in independent claim 1, and they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-13 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-6, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal Fass (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0251554 A1) in view of Ahmad (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0153613 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tal Fass discloses a computer implemented method for evaluating and forecasting cognitive function metrics based on emotional intelligence characteristics of an individual, the computer implemented method comprising:
obtaining, from a wearable sensor, first physiology data associated with lifestyle activities of a user, the lifestyle activities comprising day to day activities, the first physiology data obtained over time (Paragraphs [0050], [0066], [0100] and [0116] discuss obtaining input data from a watch, construed as a wearable device, including physiological data and the user’s activity data over a period of time points.);
obtaining, via at least one user device, user reported lifestyle data, the user reported lifestyle data comprising user reported data obtained over time (Paragraph [0187] and [0247] discuss obtaining lifestyle data using a questionnaires for continuous data input.);
computing, using at least one of the first physiology data and the user reported lifestyle data, at least one lifestyle metric (Paragraph [0486] discusses providing biofeedback based on the obtained data, construed as computing at least one lifestyle metric.);
obtaining, from the wearable sensor, second physiology data associated with specific task performance activities of a user, wherein the task performance activities are different than the lifestyle activities, wherein the second physiology data associated with specific task performance activities is obtained during a baseline condition and a plurality of stimulus conditions (Paragraphs [0228] and [0486-0487] discuss using data when a user is exposed to a stimulus during an activity, such as walking, sleeping, or visiting a gambling website, compared to the normal or baseline physiological data, and determining how the person’s cognitive function is affected.));
computing, using the second physiology data, at least one cognitive performance metric (Paragraphs [0228], [0243], and [0486-0487] discuss using data when a user is exposed to a stimulus during an activity compared to the normal or baseline physiological data, and determining how the person’s cognitive function is affected.);
obtaining, via at least one user device, emotional intelligence data, the emotional intelligence data comprising user responses to a plurality of questions (Paragraphs [0012], [0114], [0177-0179], [0187], [0243] and [0247] discuss obtaining emotional intelligence data using a questionnaires for continuous data input using a user’s device, such as a smartphone.);
computing, using the emotional intelligence data, at least one emotional intelligence metric (Paragraphs [0222-0224] discuss determining the user’s emotional intelligence or emotional quotient.);
computing at least one cognitive function metric using the at least one lifestyle metric, the at least one cognitive function metric and the at least one emotional intelligence metric (Paragraphs [0223] and [0459] discuss that when the user is in a cognitive load state based on answers from questionnaires, their emotional intelligence function is low.); and
providing an indication of the at least one cognitive function metric to at least one of the user (Paragraphs [0152], [0247] and [0501] discuss providing feedback to the user based on their current state of cognitive function.);
but Tal Fass does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein:
the first physiology data and lifestyle data obtained over a plurality of days,
Ahmad discloses wherein the first physiology data and lifestyle data obtained over a plurality of days (Paragraphs [0046] and [0151] discusses obtaining sensor data over a several days, for example 7 days or 30 days.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal Fass to include collecting data over a plurality of days, as taught by Ahmad, in order to provide a weekly summary (Ahmad, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Tal Fass discloses wherein the first physiology data comprises at least one of sleep data and heart rate data (Paragraph [0050] discusses the physiological data including sleeping time data and heart rate data.).
Regarding claim 3, Tal Fass discloses wherein the user reported lifestyle data comprises diet data (Paragraph [0181] discusses the input including a user’s eating and diet habits and patterns.).
Regarding claim 4, Tal Fass discloses wherein the at least one lifestyle metric comprises a biofeedback lifestyle metric (Paragraph [0486] discusses providing biofeedback using the data obtained.).
Regarding claim 5, Tal Fass discloses wherein the at least one cognitive performance metric comprises at least one of planning and memory (Paragraphs [0228-0229] discusses cognitive performance metrics including planning and memory.) .
Regarding claim 6, Tal Fass discloses wherein the at least one emotional intelligence metric comprises at least one of motivation, self awareness, and self regulation (Paragraphs [0100], [0359], [0497 discuss a surge of motivation, awareness of the need to change and self-regulation as a metric.).
Regarding claim 9, Tal Fass discloses further comprising adjusting the at least one emotional intelligence metric computed from user reported emotional intelligence data based on the lifestyle metric to account for user bias in self-reported data (Paragraph [0289] discusses adjusting the questionnaire based on the type of user and their personality, construed as adjusting to account for user bias in the self-reported data.).
2025Attorney Docket No. 317EP.001US01
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above. Claim 12 further recites at least one computing processor, and memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one computing processor, enable the computing system to perform the instructions (Paragraphs [0007], [0093] and [0169] discuss a computer using stored data via a captive web portal being used to implement the invention.).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal Fass in view of Ahmad, and in further view of Bach (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0309885 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tal Fass does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one cognitive function metric reflects a projected productivity capacity for the user.
Bach teaches wherein the at least one cognitive function metric reflects a projected productivity capacity for the user (Paragraphs [0206-0207] discuss determining a member’s productivity capacity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal Fass to a projected productivity capacity, as taught by Bach, in order to measure “baseline performance and improvements over time (Bach, Paragraph [0205]).”
Regarding claim 8, Tal Fass does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein providing an indication of cognitive function comprises providing an indication of reduced cognitive indicative of an expected reduced productivity capacity.
Bach teaches wherein providing an indication of cognitive function comprises providing an indication of reduced cognitive indicative of an expected reduced productivity capacity (Paragraphs [0234-0235] and [0413] discuss increasing or decreasing a difficulty level of sequences if the subject’s cognitive state is sub-par or alerting the user if they are not paying sufficient attention to the task, construed as an indication of an expected reduced productivity capacity.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal Fass to provide an indication, as taught by Bach, in order to measure “baseline performance and improvements over time (Bach, Paragraph [0205]).”
Regarding claim 10, Tal Fass does not appear to explicitly disclose computing a projected team performance metric by combining the computed metrics for a plurality of users.
Bach teaches computing a projected team performance metric by combining the computed metrics for a plurality of users (Paragraph [0224] discusses predicting a productivity for a plurality of users as a group.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal Fass to include a team performance metric, as taught by Bach, in order to “make an optimally productive use of the plurality of person's relative talents as identified by their performance and brain activity data (Bach, Paragraph [0224]).”
Regarding claim 11, Tal Fass does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the projected team performance metric is computed by applying different weighting factors to the computed metrics for the plurality of users based on the role or position of the user within the team.
Bach teaches wherein the projected team performance metric is computed by applying different weighting factors to the computed metrics for the plurality of users based on the role or position of the user within the team (Paragraphs [0162], [0206], [0222], [0224] and [0402] discusses predicting a productivity for a plurality of users as a group based on the user’s role.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal Fass to include a team performance metric, as taught by Bach, in order to “make an optimally productive use of the plurality of person's relative talents as identified by their performance and brain activity data (Bach, Paragraph [0224]).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686