DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 08/14/2026 for Application number 18/565,061. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13 have been amended and claims 4-5 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-3 and 6-15 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
quantifying a mental state can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
[receiving, as a second training data subset], at least one annotation indicative of which biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals is related to a greater value of the intensity of the mental state than the other biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
…to predict values of intensities of mental states can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
comparing the two output values to generate a comparator value indicative of which output value is larger, can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
…to predict a value of an intensity of the mental state related to the at least one production biosignal can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – training the artificial neural network on the training dataset [to predict values of intensities of mental states]”, “generating, by the artificial neural network, two output values, wherein each output value is indicative of the intensity of a mental state related to one of the biosignals,” “training the artificial neural network to predict, by the comparator value, the second training data subset; wherein the artificial neural network comprises two parts,” and “processing the production input dataset by the artificial neural network [to predict a value of an intensity of the mental state related to the at least one production biosignal.]”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these 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.
The claim further recites: collecting, as a first training data subset, at least one pair of biosignals, wherein each biosignal is related to an intensity of a mental state of one or more persons; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
receiving, as a second training data subset, at least one annotation indicative of which biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals is related to a greater value of the intensity of the mental state than the other biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
supplying the first training data subset and the second training data subset to an artificial neural network as a training dataset; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
supplying the first training data subset to an input layer of the artificial neural network; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
wherein each part is configured to receive one input biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals and to generate one output value indicative of the intensity of the mental state related to the input biosignal; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
receiving a production input dataset comprising at least one production biosignal related to an intensity of the mental state as an input dataset; This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
wherein processing the production input dataset comprises supplying the production input dataset to at least one of the two parts. This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these 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. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing an artificial neural network to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations of:
collecting, as a first training data subset, at least one pair of biosignals, wherein each biosignal is related to an intensity of a mental state of one or more persons;
receiving, as a second training data subset, at least one annotation indicative of which biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals is related to a greater value of the intensity of the mental state than the other biosignal of the at least one pair of biosignals;
supplying the first training data subset and the second training data subset to an artificial neural network as a training dataset;
supplying the first training data subset to an input layer of the artificial neural network;
receiving a production input dataset comprising at least one production biosignal related to an intensity of the mental state as an input dataset;
wherein processing the production input dataset comprises supplying the production input dataset to at least one of the two parts
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising pre-processing one or more of the biosignals before supplying the biosignals to the artificial neural network for training and/or processing, wherein the pre-processing comprises: removing noise; and/or extracting a feature according to one or more predefined criteria. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the first training data subset comprises at least two pairs of biosignals comprising the same biosignal. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the two parts are not in communication to each other. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the two parts comprise identical node structures. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein training comprises determining a common set of weights for the two parts. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the mental state comprises: stress; readiness; attention; drowsiness; and/or cognitive load. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein a first biosignal and a second biosignal relate to mental states of the same person at different time intervals. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein a first biosignal and a second biosignal relate to mental states of two different persons. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein training the artificial neural network comprises supervised learning. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein training the artificial neural network comprises minimizing a mean squared error of the comparator value with respect to the second training data subset. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the steps of receiving a production input dataset; and/or processing the production input dataset are executed by a computer attached to and/or comprised in a mobile device. This limitation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 15 additionally requires analysis for one or more sensors configured to determine a biosignal;
an input device configured to receive an annotation;
a processing unit; and a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the system to execute a method of claim 1. However, these are all additional elements which amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Allowable subject Matter:
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of original claims 4 and 5 have overcome the prior art rejection. Therefore, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection:
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert that amended claim 1 now recites a specific artificial neural network architecture, namely a twin-network structure, thus reflects an improvement to the technical field of training artificial neural networks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely recite the use of an artificial neural network as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e. to predict intensity values for a mental state). The claims are not directed towards any improvement in the training of the artificial neural network rather the claims are directed towards an improvement in an abstract idea. (improving the prediction of intensity values for a mental state). As noted above, the additional elements of the claims still amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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 H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights