DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown
below, claims 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are representative of the inventive concept.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
generating, with sensors of a head mounted device, a plurality of physiological measures of a user of the head mounted device while the user is performing a task;
processing, with an inference engine of the head mounted device, the plurality of physiological measures;
generating, with the inference engine, a task difficulty class prediction and a residual estimation based on the processed physiological measures;
generating, with the inference engine, a predicted value of a current mental state characteristic of the user based on the task difficulty class prediction and the residual estimation;
associating a mental state characteristic value with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, wherein the task difficulty class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes;
and combining the residual estimation with the mental state characteristic value associated with the task difficulty class prediction to generate the predicted value of the current mental state characteristic of the user
Claim 10 recites:
A head mounted display, comprising:
a display device to display images to a user of the head mounted display;
multi-modal sensors to generate physiological signals of the user;
and a processor to process the physiological signals and execute an inference engine to generate, based on the physiological signals, a discrete class prediction representing a task difficulty, and a continuous offset value, and to generate a continuous predicted value of a current mental state characteristic of the user based on the discrete class prediction and the continuous offset value,
wherein:
the current mental state characteristic is a current cognitive load of the user, a mean cognitive load value is associated with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, the discrete class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes, and the continuous offset value is combined with the mean cognitive load value associated with the class prediction to generate the continuous predicted value of the current cognitive load of the user.
Claim 14 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
cause multi-modal physiological signals for a user of a head mounted device to be collected by the head mounted device while the user is performing a task;
generate learned representations based on the multi-modal physiological signals;
execute an inference engine to generate, based on the learned representations, a task difficulty class prediction and a residual estimation;
generate a predicted value of a cognitive load experienced by the user based on the task difficulty class prediction and the residual estimation;
associate a mental state characteristic value with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, wherein the task difficulty class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes;
and combine the residual estimation with the mental state characteristic value associated with the task difficulty class prediction to generate the predicted value of the cognitive load experienced by the user
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
generating, processing, associating, and combining ) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “sensors”, “device”, and “interference engine”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the user collecting data and making a prediction based on the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract
ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation
out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The
recitation of generic computer components/functions of generating can also cover behavioral or interactions between people, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations reciting residual estimation, mental state characteristic value, and predicted value, also refer to the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, and 15 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, further defining a mental state characteristic, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “sensors of a head mounted device” and “inference engine of the head mounted device” , and “generating, with sensors of a head mounted device, a plurality of physiological measures”
Claim 10 recites: “display”, “display device to display images to a user of the head mounted display”, “multi-modal sensors to generate physiological signals of the user”, “a processor to process the physiological signals and execute an inference engine”, “signals”
Claim 14 recites: “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “multi-modal physiological signals for a user of a head mounted device to be collected by the head mounted device”, and “execute interference engine”.
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by “sensors of a head mounted device”, “inference engine of the head mounted device”, “display device to display images to a user of the head mounted display”, “a processor to process the physiological signals and execute an inference engine”, “Executing interference engine”, and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “signals”, “display”, and “generating, with sensors of a head mounted device, a plurality of physiological measures”.
Dependent claims 5 and 11 recite display
Dependent claim 7 recites signal
Dependent claim 8 recites trained machine learning model
Dependent claim 11 recites virtual reality (VR) headset
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by “trained machine learning model”. A computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The machine learning models are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “signal”, “display”, and “virtual reality (VR) headset”.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 9, and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14, and dependent claims 5, 7-8, and 11, hence do not integrate the aforementioned 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 10, and 14 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: A method in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. 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 as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Signal(from sensor), which is defined as the output generated by a sensor when it detects change in an environment(Para 0007, Cho(US 20090182208 A1) discloses: “Moreover, since the conventional physiological signal measuring sensor can measure only one type of physiological signal, more than one physiological signal measuring sensor is necessary to measure different types of physiological signals. “) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Display, which is expressly used to present data visually (Col. 1, Line 14, Haider(US 4338635 A) discloses: “Cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors are successfully used in a wide variety of applications, including conventional television, displays for computers, and a wide variety of other industrial, scientific and medical applications. “) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
VR Headset is a head-mounted device that immerses users in a computer-generated, 3D environment (Para 0065, Carlisle(US 20180349485 A1) discloses: “Such methods may include augmented reality… virtual reality (e.g., providing a virtual universe in which the user can move and with which the user can interact using conventional virtual reality gear, such as a headset, hand paddles, etc.), and/or the like.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Generating which refers to sending/receiving data (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748(Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 9, and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14, and dependent claims 5, 7-8, and 11. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14 hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claims 1, 10, and 14 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons.
Claim 1 (in part):
“… associating a mental state characteristic value with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, wherein the task difficulty class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes;
and combining the residual estimation with the mental state characteristic value associated with the task difficulty class prediction to generate the predicted value of the current mental state characteristic of the user .”
Claim 10 (in part):
“… the current mental state characteristic is a current cognitive load of the user, a mean cognitive load value is associated with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, the discrete class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes, and the continuous offset value is combined with the mean cognitive load value associated with the class prediction to generate the continuous predicted value of the current cognitive load of the user.”
Claim 14 (in part):
“… associate a mental state characteristic value with each of a plurality of task difficulty classes, wherein the task difficulty class prediction is selected from the plurality of task difficulty classes;
and combine the residual estimation with the mental state characteristic value associated with the task difficulty class prediction to generate the predicted value of the cognitive load experienced by the user.”
The underlined/italicized limitations indicate the reason for subject matter free of prior art.
The closest available prior art of record as follows:
• Jernigan (US20220071535A1) discloses a mental state monitoring system, but does not
fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
• Barnett (US20200365275A1) discloses a system for assessing physiological state but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
• Bower(US11304657B2) discloses a cognitive platform coupled with physiological measures of an individual, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly
discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claims 1, 10, and 14 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art as would claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, and 15 via dependency.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
(Pages 6-9) Regarding the assertion that the claim does not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The recited generating and processing steps in claim 1 are considered to be mental processes (or can be done using pen and paper) that are merely carried out by generic computers. If one were to remove the generic computer/computer function terminology, the steps in claim 1 can be performed by an individual mentally or using pen and paper. Similarly for claim 14, the tasks can be performed mentally or using pen and paper without the utilization of the generic computers/computer functions recited in the claim. A human is equipped to generate physiological measures (checking and recording a pulse (heart rate), for example) of a user while a user is performing a task and would be considered certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental process. Note that the specifications are not read into the claims and the BRI of claims are evaluated as recited.
(Pages 9-12) Regarding the assertion that the claim does not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. When evaluating claims under 101, specifications are not read into claims and are analyzed based on the recitation of the invention in the claims. The additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea.
(Pages 12-13) Regarding the assertion that the claims recite significantly more.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 10, and 14 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: A method in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee(US11416756B2): Lee discloses a system which senses physiological state to determine focus state of a user. Some disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application (Specifications, Pages 1-5).
Das(US20190175091A1): Das discloses a system for classification and quantitative estimation of cognitive stress. Some disclosures of this invention are similar to that of this instant pending application (Specifications, Pages 2-4).
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685