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 .
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 24-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the inventions are independent and distinct, each from the other. Specifically, claims 24-25 is with respect to synthesizing audio elements to obtain the target audio as described in [0112] of the specification. Claims 11-16, 18, and 21-23, on the other hand, are directed to determining matched target audio data based on the one or more target audio parameters as described in [0105] to [0106] of the specification. The preceding mentioned grouping of claims do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants.
There would also be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the following reason applies: the claims would require a different field of search as indicated by their different search terms/strategy.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-25 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR l.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
In the reply to the application filed 2026 January 06 the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 11-12, 16, and 18. Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 24-25 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 11-16, 18, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
While receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of priority application, it is not in English.
An English translation as well as a statement that the translation is accurate is required for both the priority documents. See 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(iii) & 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(4).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for both the non-English application.
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 11-16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 11-16 and 21-23) and a machine (claim 18).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 11 recites steps of
determining a target physiological parameter of a user based on user scenario information associated with audio generation for the user, wherein the user scenario information is indicative of a physiological monitoring state of the user corresponding to health requirements of the user;
obtaining vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information, the vital sign data comprises at least one physiological measurement of the user corresponding to the physiological monitoring state of the user indicated by the user scenario information;
determining one or more target audio parameters based on at least one of the target physiological parameter of the user or the vital sign data, wherein the one or more target audio parameters comprise one or more audio modulation parameters; and
determining matched target audio data based on the one or more target audio parameters, wherein the matched target audio data is determined by modulating original audio elements based on the one or more audio modulation parameters.
These steps for audio playback, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around adjusting and improving a users' health based on vital sign data. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claim 11, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of by modulating original audio elements amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of obtaining vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the obtaining action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of by modulating original audio elements, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f)
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of obtaining vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
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 generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 12-16 and 18 reciting particular aspects of audio playback such as
[Claim 12] in response to the user scenario information indicating a sleep aid scenario or a focus scenario, determining a target activeness of the user; and
in response to the user scenario information indicating a weight loss scenario, determining at least one of the target activeness, a target activity amount or a target heart rate of the user;
[Claim 13] determining the one or more target audio parameters based on the target physiological parameter and the vital sign data of the user, the one or more target audio parameters comprises at least one of: audio loudness, rhythm, tempo, key, chords, drum beats, melodies, natural notes, or soundscape;
[Claim 14] obtaining measured vital sign data of the user within a first time range based on the user scenario information;
performing a vital sign prediction based on the measured vital sign data within the first time range, to obtain predicted vital sign data of the user within a second time range after the first time range; and
determining the one or more target audio parameters based on the predicted vital sign data and the target physiological parameter;
[Claim 15] performing feature extraction processing on the measured vital sign data within the first time range, to obtain first feature data;
performing fusing processing on the first feature data and user attribute information, to obtain second feature data; and
performing the vital sign prediction based on the second feature data, to obtain the predicted vital sign data within the second time range;
[Claim 16] in response to the user scenario information indicating a sleep aid scenario or a focus scenario, obtaining heart rate data and activity data of the user within the first time range;
in response to the user scenario information indicating a weight loss scenario, obtaining at least one of activity data, motion data, heart rate data, or positioning data of the user within the first time range; and
in response to the user scenario information indicating an emotion regulation scenario, obtaining heart rate variability of the user within the first time range;
[Claim 18] a housing;
a circuit board disposed inside a space enclosed by the housing; at least one processor disposed on the circuit board;
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor, to perform the method of claim 11;
and at least one sensor mounted in the wearable device and configured to: monitor vital sign data of the user, and measure the vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans. The italicized portions containing the recitation of performing a vital sign prediction, performing feature extraction, and performing fusing at a high level of generality have been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, in light of the 2024 USPTO AI Guidance. Examiner also points out the applicant’s specification on [0184], for example, specifically states that a regression model is used.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 14, 16, and 18 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 18 (a housing; a circuit board disposed inside a space enclosed by the housing; at least one processor disposed on the circuit board;
a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; a memory configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor; and at least one sensor mounted in the wearable device) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 14 (obtaining measured vital sign data of the user within a first time range based on the user scenario information), claim 16 (obtaining heart rate data and activity data of the user within the first time range; obtaining at least one of activity data, motion data, heart rate data, and positioning data of the user within the first time range; obtaining heart rate variability of the user within the first time range); and, claim 18 (and configured to: monitor vital sign data of the user, and measure the vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information) amounts to mere data gathering and output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the obtaining and measuring performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claim 18 recites additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0250]-[0251] which provides examples of off-the-shelf memory types and [0063] & [0079] which provides examples of off-the-shelf devices. Dependent claims 14 & 16 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Additionally, claim 18 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, [pg. 5 to 6] “Heart rate (HR) is a standard vital sign and has become a routine measurement in both healthcare and fitness/sport activities. The monitoring of this signal provides information about the physiologic status by indicating changes in the heart cycle. This vital sign can be easily extracted from the ECG (R-peak) or photoplethysmography (PPG) signals [15] […] There are other ways to measure heart rate, like using inertial sensors [22] or scales [19], named ballistocardiogram (BCG), but are methods that do not have feasible measurement when compared with the HR extracted from the ECG and PPG.
It is very important in sport and activity contexts to evaluate or inform how the heart reacts during exercise and recovery”, Wearable Health Devices—Vital Sign Monitoring, Systems and Technologies, MPEP 2106.05(d). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is clearly not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11-15, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garten (US20190387998A1).
Regarding claim 11, Garten discloses determining a target physiological parameter of a user based on user scenario information associated with audio generation for the user ([0207] “determine a user goal based on what is the person doing (i.e. exercising, working). If exercising the goal may be to boost energy” [0208] “Aggregate data may be used to affect an output, for example, music that is played”)
wherein the user scenario information is indicative of a physiological monitoring state of the user corresponding to health requirements of the user ([0209] “detecting an emotion state of a user 101, and making an appropriate music recommendation on the basis of the user's responses” [0210] “A user 101 may have different desirable mental states that she wants to achieve depending on their context (i.e. condition).” [0276] “One or more of the detected emotional responses of the user may then be associated with the song. Other data may also be associated with the song […] such as measure of […] EEG valence, and other physiological and environmental state factors as described herein.” [0281] “EEG can recognize responses associated with these feelings: recognition; error; novelty; sleepiness; focused attention; calm.”)
obtaining vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information ([0035] “The system may have at least one computing device in communication with the least one bio-signal sensor to continuously receive bio-signal data comprising brainwave data of at least one user.” [0268] “EEG data of the user as additional training data to songs that have been labelled by the user as evoking a particular emotion.” [0281] “EEG can recognize responses associated with these feelings: recognition; error; novelty; sleepiness; focused attention; calm.”)
the vital sign data comprises at least one physiological measurement of the user corresponding to the physiological monitoring state of the user indicated by the user scenario information ([0281] “EEG is very good at noticing changes in the brain's state. EEG measures a series of responses to stimuli that occur in the brain. EEG can recognize responses associated with these feelings: recognition; error; novelty; sleepiness; focused attention; calm.”)
determining one or more target audio parameters based on at least one of the target physiological parameter of the user or the vital sign data;
([1017] “music recommendation and effects using biological data” [1018] “characterize music based on digital signal processing of epochs of a song to describe parameters related to human perception. Examples parameters or attributes include brightness, bandwidth, tempo, volume, rhythm, and so on.”)
wherein the one or more target audio parameters comprise one or more audio modulation parameters ([1018] “parameters or attributes include […] bandwidth, tempo, volume, rhythm, and so on.”)
and determining matched target audio data based on the one or more target audio parameters, wherein the matched target audio data is determined by modulating original audio elements based on the one or more audio modulation parameters ([1111] “The Controller changes an effect of the music such as increasing the volume. The user's reaction to the change is based on the prediction models of signals from their biological sensors. If a user has a positive reaction the change is kept. If the user has a negative reaction that effect is not added to the music.”)
Regarding claim 12, Garten discloses wherein determining the target physiological parameter of the user based on the user scenario information comprises at least one of: in response to the user scenario information indicating a sleep aid scenario or a focus scenario, determining a target activeness of the user; and in response to the user scenario information indicating a weight loss scenario, determining at least one of a target activeness, a target activity amount and a target heart rate of the user ([0278] “Spotify and track focus of people in music” [0635] “If Caleb's focus starts to drift again, brainwave sensors will detect this and change the music selection again until a stable attention pattern is achieved”)
Regarding claim 13, Garten discloses wherein determining the one or more target audio parameters based on at least one of the target physiological parameter or the vital sign data of the user comprises:
determining the one or more target audio parameters based on the target physiological parameter and the vital sign data of the user ([0006] “determining a physiological state of each of the users based at least in part on the bio-signal data of that user” [0086] “In some embodiments, the one or more sensors include bio-signal sensors, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, galvanometer sensors, electrocardiograph sensors, heart rate sensors, […] pedometers, gyroscopes, accelerometer” [0205] “each user 101 gets sound or music feedback on their physiological state from an audio transducer, such as transducer 104, with a condition being met is the audio environment is too loud, and the associated action is to reduce the volume of the audio that is being sent to the audio output transducer.”)
the one or more target audio parameters comprises at least one of: audio loudness, rhythm, tempo, key, chords, drum beats, melodies, natural notes, or soundscape ([1018] “characterize music based on digital signal processing of epochs of a song to describe parameters related to human perception. Examples parameters or attributes include brightness, bandwidth, tempo, volume, rhythm, and so on.”)
Regarding claim 14, Garten discloses wherein determining the one or more target audio parameters based on at least one of the target physiological parameter of the user or the vital sign data comprises:
obtaining measured vital sign data of the user within a first time range based on the user scenario information ([0107] “receive bio-signal data from bio-signal sensors 102” [0169] “The bio-signal data may be time-stamped and synchronized with time-stamped sound data.” [0367] “an algorithm that listens to her EEG signal does so by correlating an EEG state corresponding to increased physical activity”)
performing a vital sign prediction based on the measured vital sign data within the first time range, to obtain predicted vital sign data of the user within a second time range after the first time range; ([0391] “FIG. 6 shows EEG signals analyzed by the EEG Algorithm Pipeline. […] to output a prediction of user's brain state on a per time segment basis.”)
and determining the one or more target audio parameters based on the predicted vital sign data and the target physiological parameter ([1122] “accelerometer data to detect entrained movement (even small movements). […] analyze a musical rhythm, an EEG response, and EMG or accelerometer data to determine […] whether their entrainment predicts the tempo and rhythm of the next song/excerpt to play.”)
Regarding claim 15, Garten discloses wherein performing the vital sign prediction based on the measured vital sign data within the first time range, to obtain the predicted vital sign data of the user within the second time range after the first time range comprises: performing feature extraction processing on the measured vital sign data within the first time range, to obtain first feature data ([0027] “a biological feature extractor to extract, for each epoch of music, a set of biological features from the bio-signal sensor data using the time stamp”)
performing fusing processing on the first feature data and user attribute information, to obtain second feature data ([0027] “a machine learning engine to transform the set of sonic features, the set of biological features, the set of metadata, and the set of user attributes into, for each epoch of music, a set of categories that the respective epoch belongs to using one or more predictive models to predict a user reaction of music”)
and performing the vital sign prediction based on the second feature data, to obtain the predicted vital sign data within the second time range ([0391] “FIG. 6 shows EEG signals analyzed by the EEG Algorithm Pipeline. The pipeline extracts features from the signal. These features are used by the Brain State Classifier to output a prediction of user's brain state on a per time segment basis.”)
Regarding claim 21, Garten discloses wherein the user scenario information is indicative of a physiological monitoring state of the user selected from a plurality of physiological monitoring states based on the health requirements of the user, wherein each of the plurality of physiological monitoring states corresponds to at least one of a different target physiological parameter or a different type of the vital sign data ([0251] “A challenge may be presented to peak performance in an activity for a short amount of time. For example, in a meditation sprint, users may be challenged to meditate for short sprints with relaxation and recovery moment in between. Metrics may be based on an individual, or a team for whole group based metric for motivation and/or competition. Balance sprints in yoga postures can work the same. Combined metrics such as balance, focus and heart rate may be used.”)
Regarding claim 23, Garten discloses wherein the one or more target audio parameters correspond to the physiological monitoring state, wherein obtaining the matched target audio data based on the one or more target audio parameters comprises selecting the matched target audio data to reduce a difference between the target physiological parameter and at least a portion of the vital sign data corresponding to the physiological monitoring state ([0774] “As another example, a user may be playing music during the day time to train sleep at night. As an illustration, one plays Music containing 13-15 hz sounds. 13-15 hz is the frequency of sleep spindles, they arise during stage 2 sleep and indicate the onset of sleep. Research has shown that training sleep spindles from areas including the sensory motor cortex during the day leads to improved sleep latency, and also improved declarative memory the next day. The user can listen to Music that contains 13-15 hz binaural beats to entrain the brain. The user can listen to music and be wearing an EEG with sensors at, for example c3 and c4 (in 10-20 system), and when the user produces a 13-15 hz frequency the music will adjust as a reward for the listener, thereby entraining 13-15 hz spindles.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten (US20190387998A1) in view of Rhea (US20130123071A1).
Regarding claim 16, Garten discloses wherein obtaining the measured vital sign data of the user within the first time range based on the user scenario information comprises: in response to the user scenario information indicating a sleep aid scenario or a focus scenario, obtaining heart rate data and activity data of the user within the first time range ([1013] “A user is played sound/music during a session. This could be: a. random snippets of sound at random times […] increasing difficulty as the user has more focus and less difficult if the user is distracted” [1019] “A human response to music can be characterized by […] heart rate and heart rate variability (HR and HRV) […] and especially changes in brain activity as measured by continuous or epoch-based electroencephalography (EEG)”)
and in response to the user scenario information indicating an emotion regulation scenario, obtaining heart rate variability of the user within the first time range ([0667] “Helo wants to improve his mental state, to become “cheerier”.” [0673] “Additional indicators of positive mood may be motion-based (dancing) or increased heart rate (excitement).” [1144] “heart rate may help classify a person's emotion.”)
Garten does not explicitly disclose however Rhea teaches in response to the user scenario information indicating a weight loss scenario, obtaining at least one of activity data, motion data, heart rate data, or positioning data of the user within the first time range ([0027] “the series of program workouts may be designed to improve the exerciser's general fitness level, assist the exerciser in weight management” [0028] “re-evaluates the exerciser's average work heart rate and recovery heart rate after a predetermined time period.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Garten in response to the user scenario information indicating a weight loss scenario, obtaining at least one of activity data, motion data, heart rate data, or positioning data of the user within the first time range as taught by Rhea since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Garten does not explicitly disclose however Rhea teaches wherein the target physiological parameter and at least a portion of the at least one physiological measurement of the user corresponding to the physiological monitoring state are of a same physiological type ([0129] “The information obtained during updated fitness evaluation 66 (e.g., the exerciser's new average work heart rate and new recovery heart rate) is used to update the previously generated workout programs or to generate new workout programs […] Updating or generating program workouts at step 68 may include recalculating the exerciser's target heart rate zones.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Garten the target physiological parameter and at least a portion of the at least one physiological measurement of the user corresponding to the physiological monitoring state are of a same physiological type as taught by Rhea since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten (US20190387998A1) in view of Ovalie (US20190076091A1).
Regarding claim 18, Garten discloses and at least one sensor mounted in the wearable device and configured to: monitor vital sign data of the user, ([0088] “Each sensor may optionally communicate with a controller device either through wires or wirelessly. The controller device may be mounted to the wearable computing device in order to reside at or near the user's head or face. Alternatively, the controller device may be located elsewhere on the user's body, such as in a bag or pocket of the user's clothing. The controller device may also be disposed somewhere outside the user's body. For example, the sensors may monitor the user”)
and measure the vital sign data of the user based on the user scenario information ([0035] “The system may have at least one computing device in communication with the least one bio-signal sensor to continuously receive bio-signal data comprising brainwave data of at least one user.” [0116] “bio-signal sensors 102 may include one or more of electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors” [0268] “EEG data of the user as additional training data to songs that have been labelled by the user as evoking a particular emotion.”)
Garten does not explicitly disclose however Ovalie teaches a housing; a circuit board disposed inside a space enclosed by a housing
([0017] “Casing 101 can be an enclosure capable of housing and securing internal parts of wearable monitoring device 100” [0020] “a non-limiting circuit board 200 embodiment of monitoring device 100.”)
at least one processor ([0021] “a monitoring device processor 302 such as microprocessor 210”)
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor, to perform the method of claim 11 ([0021] “Monitoring-device processor 302 can be a device that performs executable functions on monitoring-device memory 303.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Garten a housing, a circuit board disposed inside a space enclosed by a housing, a processor, and a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor as taught by Ovalie since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 January 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, the applicant has amended claim 11 to meet the requirements of USC 112(a). Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, the applicant argues on pages 10 to 11 that amended Claim 11 has limitations that define a closed-loop audio synthesizing process in which physiological measurements are automatically processed and transformed into adaptive audio output. That the recited operations are not generic computer functions, do not merely organize human activity, and cannot be practically performed in the human mind, but instead require sensor-based acquisition and processing of physiological data in response to a detected monitoring state, and automated modulation of original audio elements to generate matched target audio data (e.g., a synthesized audio piece for output). Applicant points to the limitation of determining matched target audio data by modulating original audio elements based on one or more audio modulation parameters, where the modulation-based generation of audio data constitutes a concrete audio signal processing operation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts that the amendments do not advance prosecution and present claims are unfortunately far from being non-abstract. Generically claiming of processing audio data automatically by computers does not automatically overcome the abstract idea; this is clear in MPEP 2106. Examiner points to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. Examiner points out that the computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. For instance, the applicant’s generic claim doesn’t delineate the steps of how the argued generating steps are specifically done; e.g., not clear how the computer is performing the determination and generating steps. There is no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans handle data. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applicant’s invention is clearly directed to judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). Even if the claims nominally recites computer components that are rooted in technology, there is no recitation of how the computer components are specifically programmed to distinguish from generic computer processes. Thus, the present claim(s) are still not eligible under Step 2A Prong 1.
Applicant asserts on pages 11 to 12 that the claimed subject matter represents a technological improvement in the field of physiology-driven audio generation based on physiological monitoring states. That the claimed method is not directed to organizing human activity or merely analyzing data in the abstract. Rather, it recites a specific, integrated practical application in which physiological monitoring states and measurements are used to generate synthesized audio
data through modulation of original audio elements, rather than merely displaying or reporting that information. Applicant compares the present case to CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) and Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) arguing similarity where the claimed invention improves how a wearable device or computing system acquires, processes, interprets, and uses physiological data by transforming those measurements into matched target audio data through an automated, closed-loop modulation and synthesis of original audio elements, rather than merely presenting or selecting existing content; and, directed to a specific technological manner of processing sensor-derived data to generate a transformed technical output, rather than to an abstract idea or generic data analysis. Applicant asserts that the claimed steps reflect concrete technical
improvements in audio signal processing and physiological data integration, in which sensor derived measurements are computationally processed and applied to automatically generate synthesized audio output in real time, thereby transforming the operation and outputs of the device without human intervention. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts or computer technology. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of higher requirements for people's spiritual and physical adaptability ([0003] of the specification) through audio playback to adjust and improve users' health based on vital sign data ([0003] of the specification). Examiner points out that the problem outlined by the specification does not point to any issue with the functionality of computer/software-based technologies, rather an abstract problem with respect to humans. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problem solved by the applicant is not a technological problem; claim clearly does not solve a computing problem. Applicant is merely using computers to improve upon the judicial exception. That is, all the applicant is doing is applying computers for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).The present claims are not analogous to CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) because CardioNet provided a specific technological improvement to cardiac monitoring devices while the applicant’s claims processes data for a health/wellness application. Nominal claiming without describing the particular manner or method in which the computer operates is unlike that of Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) which specified a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. In this present application, applicant is clearly improving upon the abstract idea. Applicant’s invention is NOT a new technical way for a computer to function. MPEP 2106 is clear that patents are NOT granted to inventions that use a computer to collect, manipulate, and display data. Applicant’s current claims aren’t meaningful and do not help integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Again, the applicant’s own specification does not support the assertion that the improvement is of a technological nature.
The examiner asserts the following facts that the applicant would not be able to dispute:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
Improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology.
Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field.
The claimed invention very clearly appears to be similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant’s asserted data manipulation (pg. 11 of arguments) of processing sensor-derived data to generate a transformed technical output is absolutely not a particular transformation. In fact, the courts have already ruled on this matter where, for data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant has not demonstrated that their invention is inventive and thus the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the USC 102 rejection, applicant’s arguments regarding Garten not disclosing limitations of amended claim 11 has been considered, but examiner points out new paragraphs from Garten has been cited to teach the added limitations. Applicant’s points to differences between Garten and the present claims asserting Garten is broad, but examiner points out that applicant’s claims are broader than Garten. For example, the claiming of audio modulation parameters as well as the modulating step encompasses the narrow disclosure of Garten. Garten also discloses multiple “scenario-specific” examples that read upon the applicant’s invention. Examiner needs substantial and more narrowed limitations unique to the applicant’s invention to distinguish from Garten and withdraw the art rejection. Therefore, the USC 102 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the USC 103 rejection, examiner points out Ovalie still discloses the claim limitations it was cited to teach. Additionally, examiner has cited new references to teach the applicant’s added limitations.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Liu, H., Hu, J., & Rauterberg, M. (2009, November). Music playlist recommendation based on user heartbeat and music preference. In 2009 International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (Vol. 1, pp. 545-549). IEEE.
This reference is relevant because it discloses adjusting and improving users' health based on vital sign data.
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights