DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 11/25/2023. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
3.1. Claim 10 is 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.
3.2. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the control method" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regard to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1, 10 and 11, and their respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to a device, method and medium for estimating a chronic stress of a person.
In regard to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a person is capable of reasonably and practically acquiring observation information regarding a target person, estimating a first and second chronic stress value of the target person, acquiring difference information between the chronic stress values, and estimating a stressor, etc. using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
CLAIM 1:
A stressor estimation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire observation information regarding a target person, the observation information including a biological signal measured by a sensor worn by the target person;
estimate a first chronic stress value of the target person in a first period and by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the first period;
estimate a second chronic stress value of the target person in a second period by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the second period;
acquire difference information representing a difference between the first chronic stress value and the second chronic stress value and a difference between an event that occurred in the first period and an
event that occurred in the second period; and
estimate a stressor relating to a chronic stress of the target person, based on the difference information.
CLAIM 2
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to acquire a short term stress value of the target person,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the difference information representing, as the difference, an event
which occurred in non-overlapping periods of the first period and the second period and
in which the short term stress value or increase in the short term stress value is equal to or larger than a threshold value.
CLAIM 3
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to at least estimate, as the stressor, a cause of boosting the chronic stress value of the target person.
CLAIM 4
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to at least estimate, as the stressor, a cause of relieving the chronic stress value of the target person.
CLAIM 5
The stressor estimation device according to claim 4, wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the difference information representing, as the difference, an event
which occurred in non-overlapping periods of the first period and the second period and
in which a decrease in the short term stress value is equal to or larger than a threshold value.
CLAIM 6
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate, as the stressor, at least one of a type of the event, a place of the event, a person who participated in the event, and/or a time period of the event.
CLAIM 7
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to control an output device to output information regarding the stressor estimated by the stressor estimation means. stressor.
CLAIM 8
The stressor estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to make a determination of whether or not an event falling under the stressor has occurred; and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to control an output device to output information based on a determination result generated by the event determination means. of the determination.
CLAIM 9
The stressor estimation device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the output device to output information for prompting stress release, if an event falling under the stressor has occurred and the short term stress value of the target person or an increase in the short term stress value is equal to or larger than a threshold value during the event.
CLAIM 10
A stressor estimation method executed by a computer, the control method comprising:
acquiring observation information regarding a target person, the observation information including a biological signal measured by a sensor worn by the target person;
estimating a first chronic stress value of the target person in a first period by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the first period;
estimating a second chronic stress value of the target person in a second period by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the second period;
acquiring difference information representing a difference between the first chronic stress value and the second chronic stress value and a difference between an event that occurred in the first period and an event that occurred in the second period; and
estimating a stressor relating to a chronic stress of the target person, based on the difference information.
CLAIM 11
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a computer, the program causing the computer to:
acquire observation information regarding a target person, the observation information including a biological signal measured by a sensor worn by the target person;
estimate a first chronic stress value of the target person in a first period by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the first period;
estimate a second chronic stress value of the target person in a second period by using an estimation model based on the observation information observed in the second period;
acquire difference information representing a difference between the first chronic stress value and the second chronic stress value and a difference between an event that occurred in the first period and an event that occurred in the second period; and
estimate a stressor relating to a chronic stress of the target person, based on the difference information.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regard to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., memory, processor, medium, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “processor configured to”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite 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—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regard to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements fall under (A), that is, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0060] and [0105] of applicant's specification (US 2024/0266052) recites that the system/method can be implemented using a personal computer, smartphone, plurality of computers, tablet, etc. which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (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.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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 H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights