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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on January 23, 2026 for the patent application 18/551,034 originally filed on September 18, 2023. Claims 1-15 are amended. Claims 1-15 are pending. The first office action of October 29, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informality: Typographical error.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 recite the limitation “the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user,” repetitively (i.e. “determine a load associated with the user based on each of the physiological index of the user, the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user, and the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user,”). The Examiner reasonably believes the repetitive use of the limitation is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-14 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
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 1-15 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “an information processing apparatus” (i.e. “a machine”), claim 14 is directed to “an information processing method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 15 is directed to “a program” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “estimating workload / stress experienced by a user,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“determine, based on the heart rate of the user, an activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user;
determine, based on the skin potential of the user, an activity level of a sympathetic nervous system of the user; and
determine a load associated with the user based on each of the physiological index of the user, the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user, and the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user,
wherein the load is at least one of a workload of the user in a specific task or a visual load of the user and the visual load is associated with an alert concentration of the user.”
Per claim 14:
“measuring a physiological index of a user, wherein the physiological index includes each of a heart rate of the user and a skin potential of the user;
determining, based on the heart rate of the user, an activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user;
determining, based on the skin potential of the user, an activity level of a sympathetic nervous system of the user; and
determining a load associated with the user based on the physiological index of the user, the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user, and the activity level of the sympathetic nervous system of the user,
wherein the load is at least one of a workload of the user in a specific task or a visual load of the user, and the visual load is associated with an alert concentration of the user.”
Per claim 15:
“measuring a physiological index of a user, wherein the physiological index includes each of a heart rate of the user and a skin potential of the user;
determining, based on the heart rate of the user, an activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user;
determining, based on the skin potential of the user, an activity level of a sympathetic nervous system of the user; and
determining a load associated with the user based on the physiological index of the user, the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user, and the activity level of the sympathetic nervous system of the user,
wherein the load is at least one of a workload of the user in a specific task or a visual load by of the user, and the visual load is associated with an alert concentration of the user.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a computer” and “a plurality of sensors,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “estimating workload / stress experienced by a user,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computer” and “a plurality of sensors,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computer” as described in paras. [0020] and [0207] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0020] FIG. 9 is a diagram depicting an exemplary configuration of a personal computer.”
“[0207] The series of processes described above may be executed either by hardware or by software. In the case where these processes are to be carried out by software, the programs constituting the software are installed into a suitable computer. Such computers may include those with the software incorporated in their dedicated hardware beforehand, and those such as a general-purpose personal computer capable of executing diverse functions based on various programs installed therein.”
This broadly describes a generic computer that is commonly and commercially available today.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a plurality of sensors,” as described in paras. [0127] and [0144] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0127] The sensor part 31 in the measurement part 23 includes a camera, a microphone, and contact-type sensors. The sensor part 31 includes sensors for measuring the user's physiological indexes and thus includes the sensors capable of measuring heart rate and skin potential as discussed above.
“[0144] In step S11, biosensor data is acquired. The biosensors included in the sensor part 71 measure the heart rate and skin potential of the user. For example, a sensor attached to the steering wheel of the vehicle measures the skin potential, and a camera installed in the vehicle interior captures images that are analyzed to measure the heart rate.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a plurality of sensors,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering device commonly and commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-13 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14 and 15 recite the limitation “an activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1, 14 and 15. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1, 14 or 15. Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on January 23, 2026 related to claims 1-15 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 addresses the above-mentioned problem by (a) measuring a physiological index of a user that includes each of a heart rate and a skin potential of the user, (b) determining an activity level of a parasympathetic nervous system of the user based on the heart rate (c) determining an activity level of a sympathetic nervous system of the user based on the skin potential, and (d) determining a load on the user based on the physiological index, the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system, and the activity level of the sympathetic nervous system.
Further, the Applicant submits that the amended independent claim 1 includes a series of operations such as determining the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system based on the heart rate of the user and determining the activity level of the sympathetic nervous system of the user based on the skin potential of the user. The above-mentioned operations are not directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions). Additionally, the above-mentioned operations are not directed towards processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). In fact, the above-mentioned operations are solely directed towards determining activity levels of the parasympathetic nervous system and the sympathetic nervous system by measuring physiological indices, which are automated processes that require sophisticated hardware/software.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter is inextricably tied to a machine and does not represent "certain methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’s argument that “claim 1 addresses the above-mentioned problem,” is irrelevant. The Applicant is applying the wrong standard for determining subject-matter eligibility. Solving a problem in the art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. Further, there are many cases where prior art was not present yet an abstract idea in and of itself was still at issue (i.e. Ultramercial, Inc. v Hulu, LLC (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v Google, Inc. (2014); and Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC (2014)).
Second, it is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “estimating workload / stress experienced by a user,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying the Prong One of such analysis, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not concede, the Applicant submits the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation. The Applicant's Specification describes, for example, "[t]he sensor part 31 includes sensors for measuring the user's physiological indexes and thus includes the sensors [t]he load capable of measuring heart rate and skin potential as discussed above analysis part 32 in the measurement part 23 estimates a workload and a visual load using the information regarding the tasks recognized by the task recognition part 21, information regarding the disturbances recognized by the disturbance recognition part 22, and diverse information obtained by the sensor part 31 [i]n a case where the information processing apparatus 11 constitutes part of a system that supports semi-autonomous driving, the control part 24 controls the speed of the wipers and changes the currently presented information on the basis of the results of analysis by the load analysis part 32." See 11 [0117], [0119], and [0120] of the Specification (emphasis added).
Additionally, the Applicant's Specification describes, for example, "[i]n a case where the visual load is determined to be heavy and a heavy rainfall is recognized as a contributing disturbance, an intervention may be made to increase the wiper speed so as to clear the vision [o]n the other hand, in a case where control is transferred from step S19 to step S20, i.e., in a case where the visual load is determined to be light, an intervention may be made, for example, to announce an incoming email on the spot (the S21, currently executing process may be maintained if so desired) [i]n is it step determined whether or not the current state is fit for intervention. It is determined here whether or not the intervention set in step S20 can actually be made in the current state. For example, in a case where an intervention is set to increase the wiper speed but where the wiper speed is already at maximum, it is determined that the current state is not fit for intervention." See Specification at 11 [0149], [0150], and [0152] (emphases added).
The Applicant submits that the features of measuring a physiological index of the user that includes each of the heart rate and the skin potential of the user, determining the activity level of the parasympathetic nervous system of the user based on the heart rate, and determining the activity level of the sympathetic nervous system of the user based on the skin potential are integrated into a practical implementation of determining stress/load on the user, by which the information processing apparatus can intervene to reduce the load.
Accordingly, the Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes how the technology is improved and has established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvements to the technology, and therefore reflect a practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception. Thus, the subject matter of independent claim 1, as amended, of the present application integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, amended independent claim 1 resolves a technology-centric problem, and is therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding Step 2B, the Applicant submits that the features of amended independent claim 1 recites subject matter which amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea of "certain methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes".
For example, the Applicant's Specification describes "[t]here have also been proposed methods for reducing a stress according to its level [h]owever, the above-mentioned proposals focus only on the stress level and fail to consider factors causing the stress. There has thus been a need for a scheme of reducing the stress of the user by carrying out suitable processes reflecting the cause of the stress the present technology, there is provided an information processing apparatus including an estimation part configured to estimate a load experienced by a user, on the basis of data from a sensor measuring a physiological index of the user. The estimation part estimates, as the load, at least one of a workload experienced by the user carrying out a predetermined task and a visual load experienced by the user making alert concentration." See Specification at " [0002], [0004] and [0006].
Accordingly, the limitations of amended independent claim 1 result in accurate determination of the load/stress on a user based on the physiological index of the user (that reflect the cause of the stress), which is an improvement over the traditional systems that do not utilize the physiological index (other than heart rate of the user) of the user in determining the load/stress on the user.
Further, some of the limitations when viewed individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. However, when looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination, the invention as a whole amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 recites patent eligible subject matter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claimed “a computer” and “a plurality of sensors,” are nothing more than generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements as previously described above in the rejection. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Additionally, the Applicant further submits that amended independent claims 14 and 15 recite features similar to that of amended independent claim 1 and, are therefore, patent eligible for reasons similar to those presented above with respect to amended independent claim 1.
Further, each of dependent claims 2-13 separately recites patent eligible subject matter based on the dependence on amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons previously discussed here and above in the office action. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, the Applicant has amended claim 15 to include "non-transitory computer-readable medium" in its preamble as set forth above. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the “software per se” rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC §101 is withdrawn.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons previously discussed here and above in the office action. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715