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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the program should recite that it is embodied on a non-transitory computer readable media. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection parameter setting unit” and “a physiological indicator detection unit” in claim 1. “an impulse response extraction unit” in claim 2. “a signal processing unit” in claim 12 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim limitations “a detection parameter setting unit”; “a physiological indicator detection unit”; “an impulse response extraction unit” and “a signal processing unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear if the units are modules or processors or units of code. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-16 are 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. The claim recites “sets a detection parameter on a basis of at least one of a feature amount of an electrodermal activity signal indicating an electrodermal activity of a predetermined site of a user, biological information of the user, or environment information of the user” and it is not clear what the alternatives are for the “at least one clause”. Is it electrodermal activity or biological information or environmental information? Or is it electrodermal activity that is at least one of activity of a predetermined site, biological information or environment information? This further becomes a problem with claim 4 which has another “at least one of” alternative clause so it is not clear what the scope is of the various combinations of alternatives.
Claims 4-10 are 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. It is unclear if the features amount of electrodermal activity alternatives listed in the claim are in addition to those recites in claim 1 or if they replace those of claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear what a rise time constant is.
Claim 5 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. It is unclear what the curvature of the signal is referring to. Is this the curve of the plotted signal or some other calculation?
Claim 11 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. It is unclear what the distribution is or when and how it is determined or calculated.
Claim 12 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. There is no antecedent basis for “the number of skin conductance response impulse responses”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikoshiba et al. US 2016/0242672.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, Mikoshiba discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
a detection parameter setting unit ([¶24] the contact condition determination unit) that sets a detection parameter on a basis of at least one of a feature amount of an electrodermal activity signal indicating an electrodermal activity of a predetermined site of a user ([¶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 electrodermal activity signal ([¶155-157] the threshold is used to detect activity and is adjustable); and
a physiological indicator detection unit that detects the physiological indicator on a basis of the electrodermal activity signal and the detection parameter ([¶121] the threshold is used in determining EDA and emotional change).
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 the device further comprising an impulse response extraction unit that extracts 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 the detection parameter setting unit sets 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 the detection parameter setting unit sets 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 11, Mikoshiba discloses the detection parameter setting unit sets 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 a signal processing unit that performs 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 a signal processing unit that generates, 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 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) 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikoshiba.
Regarding claim 7, Mikoshiba does not specifically disclose the detection parameter setting unit sets 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 detection parameter setting unit sets 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 10, Mikoshiba discloses the detection parameter setting unit sets 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]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikoshiba in view of Penning De Vries US 2019/0209041.
Regarding claim 9, Mikoshiba does not disclose the detection parameter setting unit sets the discriminative threshold so as to lower detection sensitivity of the skin conductance response in a case where the acceleration in vicinity of the site is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold. Penning teaches a similar skin conductance measuring device that incorporates an acceleration sensor and uses the acceleration signal to correct the conductance ([¶118,161]). 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.
Conclusion
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