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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected. Claims 2-3 and 6 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection of claim 8 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. Applicant asserts that the claimed steps are not mere “observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions” that can be carried out mentally; rather, they are objective, machine-executed operations performed on continuously acquired heartbeat data and external sensor data, including time-series signal analysis, peak detection, threshold comparison, workload integration, and learned stimulus-response association. However, the Examiner disagrees. The acquiring step using an outside stimulus acquisition unit including at least one of a camera or a microphone amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The processor and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. The remaining steps are directed to a mental process abstract idea as shown in further detail in the rejection below.
Applicant asserts that the steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper because they require continuous physiological signal acquisition, time-aligned multi-sensor data processing, quantitative peak detection across sampled data streams, threshold-based temporal analysis, workload integration over time, and automated learning from prior sensor-derived stress events. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite these steps being performed continuously. Even if the claims did recite this, MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The remaining steps are directed to data gathering and a mental process abstract idea as shown in further detail in the rejection below.
Applicant cites to Ex Parte Desjardins, where there was a practical application based on optimizing the performance of a machine learning model on new tasks while protecting knowledge from previous tasks and improve the operation of the model itself. Applicant states that the instant application similarly offer an improvement to stress detection technology based on physiological signals, particularly in identifying stressors and evaluating their influence on a subject. However, the Examiner disagrees. In contrast to Ex Parte Desjardins, Applicant’s claim does not explicitly recite machine learning. The limitation of “learn a relation between the stressor and the degree of influence” is directed to a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable standard, this is nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of data to learn a relation between the stressor and the degree of influence.
Applicant states that the claimed invention improves stress detection technology be enabling identification of stressors, evaluation of their influence, and predictive stress determination based on learned stimulus-response relationships, which were not achievable using conventional HRV-based stress evaluation techniques. However, MPEP 2106.05 states:
As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
Applicant asserts that the claimed approach improves stress detection technology by enabling more accurate and informative stress assessment than conventional HRV-based methods, which were limited to determining the presence or degree of stress at a given moment. However, the stress detection as claimed amounts to an abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Additionally, see MPEP 2106.05 provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/16/26, with respect to claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note section below for further details.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶21: LF/HF is supposed to indicate the activity of only the sympathetic nervous system.
¶23: LF/HF serves as an index indicating the activity of only the parasympathetic nervous system.
Therefore, it remains unclear whether LF/HF indicates the activity of only the sympathetic nervous system or only the parasympathetic nervous system.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the change of the sympathetic nervous system" in line 2 and “the change of the parasympathetic nervous system” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on the amendment to claim 1, the limitations in claim 7 should respectively recite “the peak of the activity of the sympathetic nervous system of the subject” and “the peak of the activity of the parasympathetic nervous system of the subject.” For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to depend from “a peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system of the subject” and “a peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system of the subject” in claim 1.
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, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite an apparatus, a method, and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium for stress detection.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, the limitations of “acquire heartbeat information of a subject; calculate a first heart rate variability factor indicating an activity of sympathetic nervous system and a second heart rate variability factor indicating an activity of parasympathetic nervous system from the heartbeat information; detect a peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system of the subject, based on chronological change of the first heart rate variability factor; detect a peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system of the subject, based on chronological change of the second heart rate variability factor; detect a stress state of the subject, based on a fact that a time from detection of the peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system to detection of the peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system exceeds a threshold; identify, as a stressor that has provided the stress state, the outside stimuli detected just before a timing at which the peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system has been detected if the stress state is detected; calculate a degree of influence of the stressor on the subject, based on workloads of the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system; learn a relation between the stressor and the degree of influence; determine that the subject is under the stress state, without determining presence/absence of a stress state, if…there is a stimulus similar to a past one; and present information relating to the stress to a user” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving a print out of heartbeat information of a subject, calculating a first heart rate variability factor and a second heart rate variability factor from the heartbeat information, detecting peaks of the first heart rate variability factor and the second heart rate variability factor based on changes, detect a stress state of the subject based on exceeding a threshold, identify a stressor based on analyzing a print out of outside stimuli, determine the influence of the stressor, establish a relationship between the stressor and degree of influence, and determine that the subject is under the stress state, without determining presence/absence of a stress state, if…there is a stimulus similar to a past one; and write information relating to the stress to a user.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1, 8, and 9, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 9 respectively recite “a processor and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium.” Claims 1, 8, and 9 additionally recite “acquire, through an outside stimulus acquisition unit including at least one of a camera or a microphone, outside stimuli to the subject over time.” The acquiring step using an outside stimulus acquisition unit including at least one of a camera or a microphone amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The processor and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
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 the processor and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium amount to parts of a generic computer. The limitation of “acquire, through an outside stimulus acquisition unit including at least one of a camera or a microphone, outside stimuli to the subject over time” amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The outside stimulus acquisition unit including at least one of a camera or a microphone is a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure as evidenced by US 20180078732 (¶29-microphone 10 may be any suitable microphone for detecting and sampling sounds within a user's bedroom or sleep space, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art), US 20240237919 (¶113-a conventional microphone, of the signal relating to the sound environment), US 20170065792 (¶56-the microphone, the light sensor, the temperature sensor and the air quality sensor provided on the bedside device 1 may be of any type known in the art; ¶57-the microphone 15 is adapted to detect and record sounds that surround the user, for example noises from inside the room, from the street, from user's breathing, snoring (of either the user, or the user's partner who is sleeping in the same room), etc.), and US 20160112681 (¶44-the camera 2 could be a standard RGB camera; ¶30-advantageously a camera is not only used to capture images of the person, but the image of the person are also evaluated to derive vital signs (in particular breathing rate, heart rate, SpO2) according to the known principles of remote PPG). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding dependent claims 4-5 and 7, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 9 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 4 further defines a storage which is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than a part of a generic computer.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “wherein the information relating to stress includes information of the stressor provided to the subject” further defines the abstract idea as indicated in clam 1. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a part of a generic computer. The limitation of “detects presence/absence of the stress state, based on the acquired outside stimuli and the information of the stressor” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, this limitation is nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a print out of the acquiring outside stimuli and the information of the stressor to detect presence/absence of the stress state.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations further define the abstract idea as indicated in clam 1. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a part of a generic computer.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9 distinguish over the prior art but are still rejected under 35 USC § 101. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the 103 rejection, Applicant asserts that Zoicas (US 20170127994) does not teach detect[ing] a peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system of the subject, based on chronological change of the first heart rate variability factor; detect[ing] a peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system of the subject, based on chronological change of the second heart rate variability fact; and detect[ing] a stress state of the subject, based on a fact that a time from detection of the peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system to detection of the peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system exceeds a threshold, which was found to be persuasive.
The scope of detect a stress state of the subject, based on a fact that a time from detection of the peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system to detection of the peak of the activity of parasympathetic nervous system exceeds a threshold; identify, as a stressor that has provided the stress state, the outside stimuli detected just before a timing at which the peak of the activity of sympathetic nervous system has been detected if the stress state is detected; calculate a degree of influence of the stressor on the subject, based on workloads of the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system; learn a relation between the stressor and the degree of influence; determine that the subject is under the stress state, without determining presence/absence of a stress state, if the outside stimulus acquisition unit acquires a stimulus similar to a past one; and present information relating to the stress to a user were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is US 20170127994.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170127994, which relates to monitoring the autonomic nervous system (ANS) (¶1).
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 LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights