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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/05/23.
Claims 1- 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India (IN202241070722) on 12/7/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202241070722 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner has afforded a priority date of 12/7/22 to this application and respectfully requests that Applicant file the certified copy.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the smart desk comprising” rather than “wherein the smart desk comprises” at line 3.
Claims 2-8 are subsequently objected to as they inherit the deficiencies of parent Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “comprising” rather than “comprises” at line 1.
Claim 12 recites “comprising” rather than “comprises” at line 1.
Claim 13 recites “comprising” rather than “comprises” at line 1.
Claim 16 recites “comprising” rather than “comprises” at line 1.
Claim 18 recites “performs method” at line 2 rather than “performs a method”.
Claim 18 contains the following recitation: “providing the smart desk that comprises a sensor unit, and a brain activity identification unit comprising a memory unit, and a microprocessor”. Examiner recommends removing the second comma (after “memory unit”) to improve clarity of the claim to convey that the brain activity identification unit is comprised of a memory unit and a microprocessor (per Specification and Fig. 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 shows “Microcontroller 208”, while the specification uses terminology “Microprocessor” to refer to part “208” (e.g., para. [0058], “The brain activity identification unit 110 includes a memory unit 206 and a microprocessor 208”). Examiner interprets these to be the same hardware but recommends amending drawing language to be consistent with specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim interpretations
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 18 recite a “sensor unit” as implementing the function of detecting a presence of a user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk. The sensor unit is defined by the specification as “an active infra-red sensor, a radar-based human sensor, a laser-based sensor, a microwave based sensor, a motion detector, an acoustic sensor, and the like”. Under 112(f), a sensor is considered to be a hardware structural component. Therefore, 112(f) is not invoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 18 are rejected for lack of adequate written description. The claim recites functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the invention.
Specifically, Claims 1, 9, 18 recite “a sensor unit that detects a presence of the user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk”. The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how “a sensor unit” can perform all three functions of detecting a presence of a user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk. The specification does not provide any structural description or drawings of a sensor unit that is capable of performing all three tasks. The Specification reiterates the claim language at para. [0006], “The smart desk includes (a) a sensor unit that detects a presence of the user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk”. The specification further discloses, at para. [0063]: “In some embodiments, the sensor unit 108 detects an infrared radiation surrounding the smart desk 102 to detect the presence of the user on the smart desk 102. The infrared radiation may be emitted by the user as a result of temperature. The sensor unit 108 may be a passive infra-red (PIR) sensor that obtains the sensor data with the timestamp data. The sensor unit 108 may be an active infra-red sensor, a radar-based human sensor, a laser-based sensor, a microwave based sensor, a motion detector, an acoustic sensor, and the like”. Applicant has not provided evidence of how any one sensor can perform all 3 tasks, and more specifically, how any of these sensors listed in para. [0063], e.g., an infrared sensor or acoustic sensor, are able to detect “a log-in time of the user”. Examiner notes that per para. [0060], the “log-in” pertains to the user logging in via the user device through the predetermined application using a “login method with login information”, which may include “at least one of a password-based authentication with the login information, for example, user name/password, a biometric authentication including face recognition, fingerprint identification, voice recognition, and eye scanning, or a gesture-based authentication”. Applicant has not provided evidence of how a sensor unit is capable of detecting a log-in time of the user using any of the disclosed login methods in conjunction with detecting the presence of a user and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk. This is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (or filing) to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-17 inherit the deficiencies of respective parent claims 1 and 9 and are subsequently rejected.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected for lack of adequate written description. The claim recites functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the invention.
Specifically, Claims 3 and 11 recite “wherein the sensor unit comprises a passive infra- red (PIR) sensor that detects the presence of the user on the smart desk, the log-in time of the user on the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk”. The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how a passive infrared (PIR) sensor can perform all three functions of detecting a presence of a user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk. The specification does not provide any structural description or drawings of a PIR sensor that is capable of performing all three tasks. The Specification reiterates the claim language at para. [0006], “The smart desk includes (a) a sensor unit that detects a presence of the user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk”. The specification further discloses, at para. [0063]: “In some embodiments, the sensor unit 108 detects an infrared radiation surrounding the smart desk 102 to detect the presence of the user on the smart desk 102. The infrared radiation may be emitted by the user as a result of temperature. The sensor unit 108 may be a passive infra-red (PIR) sensor that obtains the sensor data with the timestamp data. The sensor unit 108 may be an active infra-red sensor, a radar-based human sensor, a laser-based sensor, a microwave based sensor, a motion detector, an acoustic sensor, and the like”. Examiner notes that per para. [0060], the login pertains to the user logging in via the user device through the predetermined application using a “login method with login information”, which may include “at least one of a password-based authentication with the login information, for example, user name/password, a biometric authentication including face recognition, fingerprint identification, voice recognition, and eye scanning, or a gesture-based authentication”. Applicant has not provided evidence of how a PIR sensor is capable of detecting any of these log-in methods in conjunction with the other functions (detecting presence of a user and detecting how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk”. Examiner submits that per Wikipedia article “Passive infrared sensor”, a passive infrared sensor (PIR sensor) is “an electronic sensor that measures infrared (IR) light radiating from objects in its field of view”. Applicant has not provided disclosure of how a PIR sensor could measure IR light to detect a “log in time” which, per [0060], involves a login method with login information. This is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (or filing) to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the smart desk" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “a smart desk”.
Dependent claims 10-17 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 9 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the smart desk" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as “a smart desk”.
Claim 18 recites “One or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, performs method of identifying a deceleration in a brain activity of a user when the user performs an event at the smart desk and reminding the user to take a break to recover from the deceleration of the brain activity, the method comprising, providing the smart desk that comprises a sensor unit, and a brain activity identification unit comprising a memory unit, and a microprocessor”, which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear how a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is capable of providing actual structures such as a “smart desk”, memory unit and microprocessor; a computer readable storage medium itself is only capable of executing computer instructions.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are drawn to a machine, Claims 9-17 are drawn to a method, and Claim 18 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, each of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-18 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
detecting a presence of the user at a smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk
receiving user data of a particular day from the user, wherein the user data comprises at least one of sleep data, an age, and a wakeup time of the user on the particular day
determining an energy graph template for a user for a particular day by analyzing (i) received user data, and (ii) a received log-in time of the user on a smart desk for the particular day;
determining an occupancy of the smart desk by the user on the particular day by analyzing information related to the presence of the user on the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk;
dynamically modifying the energy graph template of the user for the particular day by adjusting the one or more time periods of the energy graph template to obtain an adjusted energy graph, wherein the one or more time periods of the energy graph template are adjusted by analyzing data associated with the occupancy of the smart desk by the user, for the particular day, wherein the adjusted energy graph comprises one or more adjusted time periods on which the potential deceleration in the brain activity of the user occurs;
generating a reminder for each adjusted time period of the adjusted energy graph to enable the user to take the break to recover from the deceleration of the brain activity.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Determining an energy graph template for a particular user based on obtained/received data, determining how long the user has been occupying/performing an event at the smart desk, creating an adjusted energy graph for a particular day based on desk occupancy information to include adjusted time periods upon which brain activity deceleration occurs, and providing a reminder to the user to take a break for each adjusted time period of the adjusted energy graph are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider, health coach and/or the individual users themselves.
Independent claims 9 and 18 recite similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a sensor unit as implementing the step of detecting a presence of the user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk
a brain activity unit that comprises a microprocessor that is communicatively connected to the sensor unit and a user device associated with the user as implementing the steps of receiving user data, determining an energy graph template for the particular day, determining an occupancy of the smart desk, dynamically modifying the energy graph template by adjusting one or more time periods, and generating a reminder for each adjusted period to enable the user to take the break
a user device as the entity from which user data comprising at least one of sleep data, an age, and wakeup time of the user is received
a user interface on the smart desk as implementing the step of displaying the generated reminder for each adjusted time period of the adjusted energy graph
a user device as the entity from which user data of a particular day is received
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors as implementing the steps of the abstract idea
a microprocessor as implementing the steps of the abstract idea
The broad recitation of the above-mentioned general purpose computing elements (microprocessor, user interface, user device, sensor unit, etc.) at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the sensor unit, per para. [0063] of the specification, this is understood to be any one of a variety of sensors “or the like”. No particulars are provided. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the microprocessor communicatively coupled to the sensor unit and a user device associated with the user, the specification does not appear to provide any structural description or particulars of the microprocessor. Per Figure 7, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose processor (e.g., CPU 10 in Fig. 7) functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the user device, para. [0053] discloses the user device may be “a mobile phone, a kindle, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a tablet, a music player, a computer, an electronic notebook or a Smartphone”. No further details are provided. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose user computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the user interface, para. [0079] teaches on the user being reminded of periods of brain deceleration “through a user interface”; [0087] teaches on a display device which provides a GUI of the output data and may be embodied as an output device such as “a monitor, printer, or transmitter, for example”. No structure or particulars of the user interface are provided. Therefore, it is interpreted as being a general purpose computing component such as a display, functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, the specification does not provide any further disclosure of these elements other than reiterating the claim language (e.g., para. [0024]). Therefore, these elements are interpreted as being a general purpose computing components, functioning in its ordinary capacity.
These general purpose computing elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
B. Generally Linking a Judicial Exception to a Field of Use/Technological Environment: MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1, 9 and 18 additionally recite “a smart desk” (Claim 1) and “providing the smart desk that comprises a sensor unit, and a brain activity identification unit comprising a memory unit” (Claims 9, 18), which only amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Examiner prospectively notes that in the instant claims, the recitation of a smart desk does not impact how other functions in the claim are performed; none of the limitations provide a nexus to limit or improve a “smart desk”, or provide structural limitations of a “smart desk”. Therefore, recitation of a smart desk only amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field/field of use.
C. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites
a memory unit that stores a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of energy graph templates, and each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity, wherein the one or more time periods are pre-configured for each energy graph template based on historical data of the person, wherein the historical data of the person comprises at least one of sleep data, a wakeup time, sensor data on log-in time of the person on the smart desk, and how long the person performed the event at the smart desk, and an age of the person;
Claims 9 and 18 additionally recite
storing a plurality of energy graph templates on a database in the memory unit, wherein each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity, wherein the one or more time periods are pre- configured for each energy graph template based on historical data of the person, wherein the historical data of the person comprises at least one sleep data, a wakeup time, sensor data on log-in time of the person on the smart desk, and how long the person performed the event at the smart desk, and an age of the person
The above elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. As explained above, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea in the form of selecting an energy graph template for an individual based on received data, determining occupancy of a smart desk by the user, dynamically modifying the energy graph template to adjust one or more time periods in which potential brain deceleration occurs, and providing a reminder to the user to take a break at each adjusted time period. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the elements of a memory unit that stores a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of energy graph templates… (Claim 1) and storing a plurality of energy graph templates on a database in the memory unit, wherein each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods… (Claims 9, 18) are only nominally or tangentially related to the process of using obtained data to modify an energy graph template for an individual based on time periods of expected brain deceleration and reminding them to take a break to recover, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
These elements in sections A, B and C above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 1, 9, 18 as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 9 and 18 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Generally Linking a Judicial Exception to a Field of Use/Technological Environment: MPEP 2106.05(h)
Likewise, as explained above, the incorporation of a smart desk only amounts to only amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Employing general purpose computing components to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular field of use such as a “smart desk”, does not add significantly more.
C. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the elements of ”a memory unit that stores a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of energy graph templates, and each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity, wherein the one or more time periods are pre-configured for each energy graph template based on historical data of the person, wherein the historical data of the person comprises at least one of sleep data, a wakeup time, sensor data on log-in time of the person on the smart desk, and how long the person performed the event at the smart desk, and an age of the person” and “storing a plurality of energy graph templates on a database in the memory unit, wherein each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity, wherein the one or more time periods are pre- configured for each energy graph template based on historical data of the person, wherein the historical data of the person comprises at least one sleep data, a wakeup time, sensor data on log-in time of the person on the smart desk, and how long the person performed the event at the smart desk, and an age of the person” only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
D. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section C above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The elements of “a memory unit that stores a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of energy graph templates…” (Claim 1) and “storing a plurality of energy graph templates on a database in the memory unit, wherein each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity” (Claims 9, 18) only amount to storing/retrieving data in memory, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims:
Claims 2 and 10 recite limitations pertaining to wherein the sensor unit detects an infra-red radiation surrounding the smart desk to detect the presence of the user on the smart desk, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. The step of detecting infra-red radiation surrounding the desk to detect the presence of the user is only nominally/tangentially related to the abstract idea of selecting an energy graph template and dynamically modifying it based on received data in order to recommend an adjusted time period when the user is predicted to experience brain deceleration to take a break. This element has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As evidenced by the prior art of record, using a sensor to detect infrared radiation of a person to detect presence of the person in a particular area is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element in the surveillance field. See: Osborne (US Publication 20200205621A1, paras. [0060], [0073]); Hartenstein (US Publication 20220023465A1, paras. [0090], [0099]); Takahashi (US Publication 20170181249 A1, para. [0060]). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 12 and 13 recite limitations pertaining to wherein the user device comprises a pre-determined application through which the user data is inputted by the user for the particular day, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. A user entering data for a particular day falls within the scope of the abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activity); the user device and application are understood to using general purpose computing elements as tools to apply the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitation pertaining to “pairing the application of the user device with the smart desk via a network”, this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as pairing an application of the user device to a smart desk via a network is only nominally or tangentially related to the abstract idea of selecting an energy graph template and dynamically modifying it based on received data in order to recommend an adjusted time period when the user is predicted to experience brain deceleration to take a break. This element has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and amounts to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 5 and 14 recite, wherein the network is selected from a group comprising of Bluetooth, Long Range (LoRa), WiFi, Narrow Band-Internet of Things (NB-IoT), GSM/GPRS module, Zigbee WiFi, Radio Frequency (RF), Zigbee or combinations thereof, which only narrows the scope of parent claims 4 and 13. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 and 15 recite limitations pertaining to wherein the data associated with the occupancy of the smart desk by the user comprises a time duration for which the user occupies the smart desk for performing the event and a time duration on which the user takes rest, which further narrows the scope of the abstract idea as set out above. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 7 and 16 recite limitations pertaining to wherein the user interface comprises a Light Emitting Diode (LED) that visually indicates the deceleration in the brain activity of the user by changing colour, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Visually indicating a color of a displayed item to indicate deceleration in brain activity falls within the scope of the abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activity); the user interface and LED are understood to using general purpose computing elements as tools to apply the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 8 and 17 recite limitations pertaining to wherein the deceleration of the brain activity of the user comprises a state attained by the user comprising at least one of fatigue, slump, sleepiness, imagination, daydreaming, irritable feeling, stressed, or lack of drive and motivation, which further narrows the scope of the abstract idea as set out above. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-17, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1 or claim 9 respectively. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-17 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of their parent independent claims above. As discussed above with respect to the independent claim and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-17, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Eligible Claims
Claims 3 and 11 are subject matter eligible as they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. The claims recite limitations pertaining to wherein the sensor unit comprises a passive infra-red (PIR) sensor that detects the presence of the user on the smart desk, the log-in time of the user on the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk, which comprises an additional element in the form of extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering). Under the Berkheimer analysis at Step 2B, a search of publicly available prior art fails to yield references that indicate that a PIR sensor that detects a presence of the user in an area, a log-in time of the user to a computing device, and how long the user is performing an event in the area, was well understood, routine or conventional activity.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
Claims 1, 9 and 18 are free of the prior art. The closest prior art is understood to be the Rise Science webpage (www.risescience.com). The Rise Science article posted to the Rise website blog entitled “When Are You Most Productive? Ask Your Circadian Rhythm”, which is directed to a smartphone app for collecting sleep data of an individual and predicting energy dips and peaks throughout the day so that a user can prioritize their most cognitively demanding tasks when energy is at its peak and do less demanding tasks or take a break when energy is at its lowest, broadly teaches on the instant limitations pertaining to: each energy graph comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity (Page 3, figure directly under “Circadian rhythm” shows “My energy schedule” (interpreted as “energy graph”, which shows “Dip” marked with a flag at approximately 4pm, interpreted as “deceleration in the brain activity” while “Peak activities” is indicated for 6:55-9:45p, the time where the line dips around 4p is interpreted as a “time period”), wherein the one or more time periods are pre-configured for each energy graph based on historical data of the person (Page 4, last paragraph, “The timing of these energy peaks and dips depends on how long and at what times you slept the night before”), wherein the historical data of the person comprises at least one of sleep data, a wakeup time, sensor data on log-in time of the person on the smart desk, and how long the person performed the event at the smart desk, and an age of the person (Page 4, last paragraph, “The timing of these energy peaks and dips depends on how long and at what times you slept the night before – interpreted as historical data comprising “sleep data”).
determine an energy graph for the user for the particular day from the database by analyzing (i) the user data that is received from the user device (Page 4, last paragraph, “The timing of these energy peaks and dips depends on how long and at what times you slept the night before – interpreted as historical data comprising “sleep data”; page 12, “RISE predicts your circadian rhythm each day based on your phone use behavior” – data received from the user device),
energy graph at a user interface [of the user device] to enable the user to take the break to recover from the deceleration of the brain activity (Image at page 3 shows flag for “Dip” in “My energy schedule” graph around 4pm; page 13, third paragraph teaches on “scheduling easier tasks like admin or emails” during afternoon dip or using the afternoon dip to “take a break”, “work out”, or “squeeze in a power nap”, all interpreted as the user “taking a break to recover” from “deceleration of brain activity”).
The Rise Science website FAQ page broadly teaches on the limitations pertaining to:
, [which] receives user data of a particular day from the user device, wherein the user data comprises at least one of sleep data, an age, and a wakeup time of the user on the particular day (Rise Website FAQ, first page teaches on using “data from your phone”; page 4, teaches on Rise receiving “phone movement and steps data” and “data from your interactions with the app”; Page 4, last paragraph, states “Most people, based on our data, touch their phone soon before they go to bed and soon after they wake up. RISE uses the best passive data methods (phone data) to calculate sleep duration” – interpreted as the user device (phone) receiving user data (bed time/wake up data, which can be used to determine total sleep duration) each day).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims additionally requires:
a smart desk that comprises a sensor unit that detects a presence of the user on the smart desk, a log-in time of the user at the smart desk, and how long the user is performing the event at the smart desk
a memory unit that stores a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of energy graph templates, and each energy graph template comprises one or more time periods at which a person has the deceleration in the brain activity
an energy graph template that is determined for the user for a particular day based on analyzing both (i) the user data that is received from the user device, and (ii) the log-in time of the user on the smart desk that is received from the sensor unit, for the particular day.
dynamically modifying the energy graph template of the user for the particular day by adjusting the time periods of the energy graph template to obtain an adjusted energy graph, wherein the one or more time periods of the energy graph template are adjusted by analyzing data associated with the occupancy of the smart desk by the user, for the particular day, wherein the adjusted energy graph comprises one or more adjusted time periods on which the potential deceleration in the brain activity of the user occurs
generating a reminder for each adjusted time period of the adjusted energy graph at a user interface on the smart desk to enable the user to take the break to recover from the deceleration of the brain activity
These elements are not taught by the Rise Science website, and distinguish the instant invention from the Rise Science mobile app.
Rise Science does not teach on any type of integration with a smart desk or other smart furniture. Munyon et. al. (US Publication 20110023113A1) teaches on the partial limitation determine an occupancy of a desk by the user on the particular day by analyzing information related to the presence of the user on the desk ([0022] teaches on using a sensor configured to detect unique identifying characteristics of a particular individual in a region around a workstation; [0037]-[0039] teach on using an infrared sensor shining from above to detect and determine occupancy of a space by a user and identify the user).
Rise Science teaches on indicating via a graph, the time of day when a user’s energy dip (“brain deceleration”) occurs, but does not teach on explicitly reminding the user to take a break when this occurs. Sculley et. al. (US Patent 10459611B2) teaches on the partial limitation generating a reminder at a user interface to enable the user to take the break to recover from the deceleration of the brain activity (Col 69, lines 4-7 when sensor data indicates the user is “losing focus” (interpreted as deceleration of brain activity), the system may encourage the user to take a break).
A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that would make the claimed combination obvious when considered as a whole.
Other relevant prior arts made of record include:
US Publication 20190251858A1, teaching on a method of generating a presentation of an energy level of a user based on collected sleep and daily activity of the user for tracking energy levels over time
US Patent 7766827B2, teaching on predicting human cognitive performance based on sleep history and time of day
US Publication 20170309196A1, teaching on user energy-level anomaly detection, which provides suggestions to the user to increase their energy level when an anomaly is detected
Salehinejad et al. Cognitive functions and underlying parameters of human brain physiology are associated with chronotype, teaching on how chronotype can modulate human brain function including higher-order cognition at a particular time of day
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682