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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 3/25/26. Claims 17-19 are new. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps setting a detection parameter based on at least one feature of the electrodermal activity and detecting based on that detection parameter a physiological parameter.
The limitation of setting a detection parameter based on at least one feature of the electrodermal activity and detecting based on that detection parameter a physiological parameter, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “setting” and “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user selecting a threshold and detecting the peaks of the signal that cross the threshold. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 17-19 recite the abstract idea of mathematical equations.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikoshiba in view of Penning De Vries US 2019/0209041.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, Mikoshiba discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
a processor ([¶73] processor 64); and
a memory ([¶112]) operably coupled to the processor and storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the information processing apparatus to;
pre-process an electrodermal activity signal using filtering to generate a pre-processed electrodermal activity signal ([¶32,37]), wherein the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal:
indicates an electrodermal activity of a predetermined site of a user ([¶6-7] EDA is determined); and
includes a skin conductance level of skin of the user at the predetermined site ([¶116-118] SCR and SCL are determined),
wherein the predetermined site is a site on the skin of the user having a lower sweat gland density as compared to a palm or a fingertip of the user resulting in comparatively weaker or noisier signal detection condition ([¶7] the device is used on a site other than the palm or fingertip)
set a detection parameter on a basis of at least one of a feature amount of the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal ([¶116-118] SCR and SCL are determined), biological information of the user ([¶6-7] EDA), or environment information of the user ([¶156,186] the environmental factors are also monitored), the detection parameter being used in a case of detecting a physiological indicator on a basis of the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal ([¶155-157] the threshold is used to detect activity and is adjustable); and
detecting the physiological indicator on a basis of the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal and the detection parameter ([¶121] the threshold is used in determining EDA and emotional change)
wherein the electrodermal activity signal being pre-processed using the filtering, and the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal forming the basis for the setting of the detection parameter, improves measurement of the skin conductance level and the detection of the physiological indicator at the predetermined site under weak or noisy signal detection conditions ([¶159] the filtering suppresses noise. It is noted that this limitation is just a statement of what filtering commonly does).
Mikoshiba discloses low-pass filtering the signal to process it but does not disclose band passing the signal. Penning teaches a similar skin conductance measuring device that uses a band pass filter ([¶122,144,146] low pass filter 72 and unit 86 form a band pass. It is noted that filtering is well understood in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Mikoshiba with the accelerometer of Penning as Mikoshiba already discloses trying to account for motion and Penning provides a sensor for doing just that.
Regarding claim 2, Mikoshiba discloses the electrodermal activity signal indicates skin conductance of the site, the physiological indicators includes a skin conductance response (skin conductance activity) ([¶116-118] SCR and SCL are determined), and
the detection parameter includes a discriminative threshold used for discriminating the skin conductance response ([¶118 121] the threshold is used in determining SCR and emotional change).
Regarding claim 3, Mikoshiba discloses extracting an impulse response of the electrodermal activity signal, wherein the discriminative threshold is a threshold for discriminating whether or not the impulse response is a skin conductance response impulse response due to the skin conductance response on a basis of an amplitude of the impulse response ([¶80-85,121,129-133] the thresholds are amplitude thresholds for the skin response).
Regarding claim 4, Mikoshiba discloses a feature amount of the electrodermal activity signal includes at least one of a curvature of a skin conductance level signal indicating a skin conductance level included in the electrodermal activity signal, a level of the skin conductance level signal ([¶116-118][FIG3] SCR and SCL are determined based on curves in the waveform), an occurrence status of the skin conductance response in the electrodermal activity signal ([¶184] frequency of occurrence of the SCR is measured), or a rise time constant of the impulse response ([¶156,177,217] rates of change are tracked which is considered a rise time),
the biological information includes at least one of a heart rate or heart rate variability of the user ([¶229] heart rate can be measured), and
the environment information includes at least one of acceleration in vicinity of the site, angular velocity in vicinity of the site, audio data, image data, or information regarding an action of the user ([¶132,177] contact failure can indicate motion of the patient like walking).
Regarding claim 5, Mikoshiba discloses setting the discriminative threshold so as to increase detection sensitivity of the skin conductance response in a case where the curvature of the skin conductance level signal is negative ([¶2,142,153-157] the negative trends in the curve of the signal can be used as guidance when changing the thresholds).
Regarding claim 6, Mikoshiba discloses setting the discriminative threshold so as to increase detection sensitivity of the skin conductance response in a case where the level of the skin conductance level signal is smaller than a predetermined threshold ([¶155,156] the SCR detection threshold is changed in relation to the SCL signal).
Regarding claim 7, Mikoshiba does not specifically disclose setting the discriminative threshold so as to increase detection sensitivity of the skin conductance response in a case where the skin conductance response is not generated in the electrodermal activity signal. Mikoshiba does disclose changing the thresholds for detection based on changes in the signal or changes in the SCL ([¶151-160]) and changing the thresholds based on other measures ([¶159]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the threshold as claimed since it has been determines that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 IIA and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 8, Mikoshiba does not specifically disclose setting the discriminative threshold so as to increase detection sensitivity of the skin conductance response in a case where the rise time constant of the impulse response is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold. Mikoshiba does disclose changing the thresholds for detection based on changes in the signal or changes in the SCL ([¶151-160]) as well as basing the threshold on the rate of change ([¶130-136]) and changing the thresholds based on other measures ([¶159]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to change the threshold as claimed since it has been determines that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 IIA and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 9, Penning teaches an acceleration sensor and uses the acceleration signal to correct the conductance ([¶118,161]).
Regarding claim 10, Mikoshiba discloses setting the discriminative threshold on a basis of a parameter based on at least one of the heart rate or the heart rate variability of the user ([¶229] the heartbeat can be used with the contact determination which affects the threshold setting). Mikoshiba does not specifically disclose the heart beat detecting embodiment is used with the embodiment that changes the threshold but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the embodiments as Mikoshiba discloses changing the thresholds based on other measures ([¶159]).
Regarding claim 11, Mikoshiba discloses setting the discriminative threshold on a basis of a distribution of amplitudes of the impulse response ([¶159,184] the threshold can be changes based on occurrence and distribution).
Regarding claim 12, Mikoshiba discloses smoothing of the number of skin conductance response impulse responses extracted on a basis of the discriminative threshold before change and the number of skin conductance response impulse responses extracted on a basis of the changed discriminative threshold, the smoothing being performed in a predetermined period of time after the discriminative threshold is changed ([151-160] the threshold is based on the averaged or smoothed signal).
Regarding claim 13, Mikoshiba discloses generating on a basis of the extracted skin conductance response impulse response, a skin conductance response signal indicating the skin conductance response included in the electrodermal activity signal ([¶110-125] the SCR is determined).
Regarding claim 14, Mikoshiba discloses the site is a wrist of the user ([¶102]).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikoshiba in view of Benedek et al. “Decomposition of skin conductance data by means of nonnegative deconvolution”.
Regarding claim 17-19, Mikoshiba does not specifically disclose extracting an impulse response of the pre-processed electrodermal activity signal by a deconvolution arithmetic operation using a Bateman function as a transfer function. Benedek discloses using the Bateman function ([pg. 649 column 2 and the first segment on pg. 650]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Mikoshiba with the Bateman function of Benedek in order to detect any deviation from the SCR shape. Additionally, Applicant’s own specification discloses this is well understood, see ¶50.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The human mind cannot effectively bandpass or filter a signal, however, this is not considered part of the abstract idea of mental processes. The filtering is part of the pre-solutional data gathering performed before the abstract mental processes of setting a detection parameter and detecting the physiological indicator. Applicant also argues that the claims provide a technological improvement. The supposed improvement is using a site that is not the finger or palm and pre-processing the signal. The prior art teaches using the wrist as a site which does not impede use of the hands and filtering and pre-processing a signal is well-understood in the art and in electrical signal processing. It is not clear how the specific pre-processing provides an improvement or advantage in the field as they are not novel concepts.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the 103 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pennin discloses low-pass filtering and gating that act as a band-pass. Additionally, band-pass filtering as a pre-processing techniques is well-understood.
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 ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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 A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights