Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 3 and 5 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22). Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non- transitory computer readable medium that, when executing on one or more computing devices, performs the steps of:
-providing a machine learning model trained to report a stress level based on a heart rate, a heart rate variability, and a motion measured from a monitor;
-acquiring a plurality of measurements of the heart rate, the heart rate variability, and the motion from a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user over an interval;
-processing the plurality of measurements acquired over the interval with the machine learning model to provide a stress estimate for the user over the interval;
-scaling the stress estimate with a non-linear scaling function that transforms the stress estimate into a value within a predetermined range;
-adjusting the stress estimate based on user context to provide a dynamic stress value;
-presenting the dynamic stress value to the user in a display of a user device; and
-in response to the dynamic stress value exceeding a predetermined threshold, presenting, in real time, an intervention recommendation to the user.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” and “mathematical concept” because analyzing measurements to estimate stress level using a function that transforms the stress estimate can all be performed in the human mind utilizing a mathematical relationship.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non- transitory computer readable medium that, when executing on one or more computing devices (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 55), performs the steps of:
-providing a machine learning model trained to report a stress level based on a heart rate, a heart rate variability, and a motion measured from a monitor;
-acquiring a plurality of measurements of the heart rate, the heart rate variability, and the motion from a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 41, 44-45) over an interval;
-processing the plurality of measurements acquired over the interval with the machine learning model (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 130, 190) to provide a stress estimate for the user over the interval;
-scaling the stress estimate with a non-linear scaling function that transforms the stress estimate into a value within a predetermined range;
-adjusting the stress estimate based on user context to provide a dynamic stress value;
-presenting the dynamic stress value to the user in a display of a user device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 55); and
-in response to the dynamic stress value exceeding a predetermined threshold, presenting, in real time, an intervention recommendation to the user.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 2 and 17 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 2 and 17 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 4: The claim specifies displaying on a wearable monitor, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies the function including a non-linear scaling, which is a mathematical concept.
Claim 7-9: the claim specifies generating a recommendation based on stress estimate, which is a mental process.
Claim 10, 18: The claim specifies the machine learning model trained using a training set, which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without altering or affecting how the use of at least one abstract idea is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11, 14: The claim specifies identifying a threshold for stress estimate, which further narrows the mental process.
Claim 12: The claim specifies reporting the acute stress, which is a mental process using pen and paper.
Claim 13: The claim specifies recommending remediation for acute stress, which is a mental process.
Claim 15: The claim specifies gathering measurements every 30 seconds, which is a mental process.
Claim 16: The claim specifies the interval, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 19: The claim specifies the model including an analytical model, which is a mathematical concept.
Claim 20: The claim specifies analytical model, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 21: The claim specifies presenting dynamic stress value, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 22: The claim specifies presenting intervention recommendation to the user, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 2, and 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as providing a machine learning model, acquiring measurements, present dynamic stress value, present intervention recommendation, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); process measurements to provide stress estimate, scaling the stress estimate with a function, adjust the stress estimate,, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 4, 6-9, 12, and 19-22, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claim 4, 21-22 (presenting, displaying), 7-9 (intervention recommendation), 12 (report acute stress), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 3 (scaling), 6 (non-linear scaling), 19-20 (using an analytical model) e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borthakur (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0145338).
As per claim 17, Borthakur teaches a method comprising:
-providing a model configured to output a stress level based on a heart rate, a heart rate
variability, and a motion measured from a monitor (Borthakur: para. 41; Body data and
contextual data provide to machine learning unit for analysis and derivation.);
-acquiring a plurality of measurements of the heart rate, the heart rate variability, and the motion from a wearable physiological monitor worn by a user over an interval (Borthakur: para. 39; Sensors detect physiological parameters. Heart rate, heart rate variability, and motion.);
-processing, using the model, the plurality of measurements over the interval to provide a stress estimate for the user over the interval (Borthakur: para. 40; Generate a body score that pertains to the stress level using the machine learning model.); and
-adjusting the stress estimate based on user context to provide a dynamic stress value (Borthakur: para. 41).
As per claim 18, the method of claim 17 is as described. Borthakur further teaches
wherein the model includes a machine learning model trained to report the stress level based on
the heart rate, the heart rate variability, and the motion measured from the monitor (Borthakur:
para. 41).
As per claim 19, the method of claim 17 is as described. Borthakur further teaches
wherein the model includes an analytical model using a combination of a scaled heart rate score
and a scaled heart rate variability score (Borthakur: para. 41).
As per claim 21, the method of claim 17 is as described. Borthakur further teaches further comprising presenting the dynamic stress value to the user (Borthakur: para. 41).
As per claim 22, the method of claim 17 is as described. Borthakur further teaches further comprising, in response to the dynamic stress value exceeding a predetermined threshold, presenting, in real time, an intervention recommendation to the user (Borthakur: para. 41; para. 48; Provide feedback to user based on processed data.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the recited stress estimation process into a specific technological solution for real-time physiological monitoring. The present invention solves the problem associated with calculating stress estimate, which is not a problem of technical nature, but an administrative problem solved by a scheme. The present application does not involve more than a generic utilization of well-known functions of a computer, including the particular arrangement/combination of functions, and therefore does not involve any invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method.
Applicant argues that the amended claim uses a specialized sensor hardware, real-time processing constraints, and device-specific presentation. Examiner disagrees. Examiner fails to see, even in the specification, the specialized sensor hardware. Applicant does not assert that there is any unconventional use of a sensor and neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. The use of the term “real-time” does not disqualify the limitation from being categorized as an abstract idea. Language such as concurrently, automatically, instantly, or simultaneously to describe the automation of a manual process is not enough to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality no. (iii) mere automation of manual processes). Examiner also notes that language such as this is not restricted to computer processes, humans can automatically/instantly/simultaneously complete different tasks (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) stating that the mental processes may be completely by humans plural – not just a singular human mind). Finally, it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention represents an improvement in the functioning of a wearable stress-monitoring system, which provides more accurate and interpretable stress indicators. Generic computer technology for processing data do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. The improvement recited by the Applicant relate to an alleged improvement in efficient processing, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. While the claimed method purports to accelerate the process of analyzing data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Furthermore, the wearable stress-monitoring system is a generic computing system carrying out generic steps.
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of dynamically adjusting stress estimates based on context. Examiner disagrees. Borthakur teaches using body data and contextual data to derive patterns and dynamic recommendation due to the dynamic mental state, therefore the stress estimate is adjusted due to dynamic body data with contextual data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moore – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0345897 – Teaches a method for HRV data collection and analysis to provide customized scores.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681