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(s) 1, 4-10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving… sensor data”, “determining… a target period”, “pre-processing… the GSR data”, “generating… a histogram”, “dividing… the histogram”, “identifying… a first characteristic value”, “determining… a ratio”, “determining… a stress regulation score”, and “presenting… one or more performance scores”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. A “computing device” is recited at a high level of generality but only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, such that the judicial exception is not applied by use of a particular machine. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are a display used for presenting the scores and a “computing device” for execution of the judicial exception itself. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional, see MPEP 2106.05: Presenting data, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 - another type of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, and MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 4-10 and 21 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Claim 4 is directed to mathematical concepts, which are another grouping of abstract ideas; claims 5-6 and 21 are directed to drawing conclusions as part of the mental process itself; claims 7-9 are directed to the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting the result, and claim 10 is directed to the insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering. Thus, claim(s) 1, 4-10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 3, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 3 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 3 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving… sensor data”, “determining… a target period”, “pre-processing… the GSR data”, “applying a low-pass filter”, “determining slope values”, “determining an anxiety score and a recovery score”, “generating… a histogram”, “determining… a stress regulation score”, and “presenting… one or more performance scores”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams), and mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations. The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. A “computing device” is recited at a high level of generality but only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, such that the judicial exception is not applied by use of a particular machine. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are a display used for presenting the scores and a “computing device” for execution of the judicial exception itself. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional, see MPEP 2106.05: Presenting data, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 - another type of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, and MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 3 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 22 and 23 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 3 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Claims 22 are directed to mathematical concepts, which are another grouping of abstract ideas; claims 23 are directed to drawing conclusions as part of the mental process itself. Thus, claim(s) 3, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant argues that the invention as claimed cannot fall into the grouping of mental processes because GSR sensors “output data at rates much higher than can be practically processed in the human mind” and “the signals can be very noisy and are not practically interpretable as a mental process without significant digital processing”. This is entirely unpersuasive. Initially, it should be noted that the output of data from sensors is part of data gathering, not the judicial exception itself, as the rate of data output from a sensor does not have an inherent effect on how that data is processed, such that this is unrelated to whether the identified judicial exception falls into the grouping of mental processes. Further, whether the signals “can be very noisy” is not an inherent feature of the gathered data, only a possibility, and it is unclear how this relates to the invention as claimed which does not address noise in the gathered data, such that this is also moot.
Applicant next asserts that the claimed invention provides “a technological improvement” by “objectively training and evaluating user performance during stressful conditions”; as this appears to be the judicial exception itself, this is unpersuasive as any technological improvement must be provided by an additional element as “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant then refers to “specific techniques for processing signals”; it should be noted that these “specific techniques” have not been recited in the claims, such that this general discussion is moot. As presented, the claims call for taking data, generating a histogram, and drawing conclusions by observing the histogram, without any specific “techniques for processing signals”, such that this assertion of a technological improvement remains moot. Still further, Applicant has not shown where this improvement is recognized in the specification as required by MPEP 2106.05(a), only asserting that the invention as a whole is, by virtue of its existence, an “improvement”.
Applicant concludes by generally asserting that the claimed inventions “recite a specific technical solution for deriving information” and the ordered combination of claim elements provides “significantly more than the abstract idea” without identifying how or where this might be shown in the claims, such that this general assertion is also unpersuasive.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as all claims are rejected under 101 above they are not presently allowable; the question of prior art will be revisited if applicable after any future amendments.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4683891 to Cornellier and US 2022/0151528 to Yeo, which disclose similar methods involving GSR and stress.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights