DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted June 30, 2026. This application claims the priority benefit of Taiwan application serial no. 112150251, filed on December 22, 2023. Claims 1, 4 – 6, 9, and 12 – 14 are amended. Claims 7 and 15 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 14 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 14 are drawn to a system and method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite determining the emotional status of a user according to the user’s physiological changes and a facial image, where the physiological changes can comprise changes in blood pressure, blood oxygen, pulse, and body temperature, wherein a normal range of the facial temperature change has a variable temperature threshold taking into account changes in a room temperature; analyzing the image when it is determined the emotional status meets a preset emotional status; and determining whether to issue an alert based on the result of the analysis.
The respective dependent claims 2 – 6, 8, and 10 – 14, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that present invention “relates to an electronic system and a physiological monitoring method, and in particular relates to an electronic system and a physiological monitoring method configured to monitor a health status ” (paragraph 2 of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address a need “perform real-time monitoring of the physiological status of the user to issue an alert when the physiological status of the user is critical, and effectively issue alerts for the critical status of the user caused by fatigue, excessive use of electronic devices or stress so that the user may take emergency measures accordingly” (paragraph 30 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “electronic system”, “camera”, “auxiliary feature sensor”, “signal”, “accelerator”, “processor”, “executing an artificial intelligence model, wherein the processor of the accelerator is further configured to classify the facial image into preset emotional statuses”, “wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained by a data set including a plurality of facial images labeled with the preset emotional statuses “, “network”, “first alert device to issue a first alert signal”, “a network setting of the electronic system is turned on”, “second alert signal”
Claim 2: “electronic system”, “accelerator”
Claim 3: “electronic system”, “accelerator”, “image recognition technology”, “artificial intelligence model”
Claims 4, 6: “electronic system”, “accelerator”
Claim 5: “electronic system”
Claim 8: “electronic system”, “the accelerator is disposed on a motherboard or a connector, or is disposed on an edge device connected through a connection terminal or a transmission line”
Claim 9: “electronic system”, “processor” “taking a facial image of a user”, “sensing an auxiliary feature”, “signal”, “executing an artificial intelligence model, classifying the facial image into preset emotional statuses”, “wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained by a data set including a plurality of facial images labeled with the preset emotional statuses “ “network”, “first alert device to issue a first alert signal”, “a network setting of the electronic system is turned on”, “second alert signal”
Claim 10: “image recognition technology”
Claim 11: “image recognition technology”, “artificial intelligence model”
Claims 12 – 14: “signal”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0022] In some embodiments, the disposition location of the accelerator 12 may be, for example, integrated on the motherboard, or separately disposed on a keyboard, mouse, connector, or peripheral device. In some embodiments, the accelerator 12 may be, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), any other type of integrated circuit, state machine, an advanced RISC machine (ARM) based processor, other similar elements, or a combination of the above elements. The accelerator 12 may store a pre-trained artificial intelligence (AI) model. The artificial intelligence model may be trained by a data set including multiple facial images with pre-labeled emotional statuses, so that the artificial intelligence model may classify subsequent input facial images to determine whether the facial images fall into any of the preset emotional statuses. The accelerator 12 may perform image recognition on the facial image by executing the artificial intelligence model to determine the emotional status of the user. For example, the artificial intelligence model stored in the accelerator 12 may be a machine learning model of supervised or unsupervised learning, or a deep learning model under the above classification, such as a region-based convolutional neural network (RCNN) series, which may be, for example, RCNN, fast RCNN, mask RCNN and faster RCNN, SSD and YOLO (you only look once) series (e.g., YOLO, YOLOv2, YOLO 9000 and YOLOv3) and other models. Furthermore, the above-mentioned artificial intelligence model may be built based on decision trees, logistic regression, SVM (support vector machine), naive Bayes, kNN, or other suitable algorithms. In addition, for the aforementioned deep learning model, one may also consider aspects such as its image pre-processing, model architecture, model depth, convolution layer parameters, pooling layer, activation function, loss function, specific architecture of each model, design philosophies, accuracy, and execution speed. By combining, adding, adjusting, and modifying these aspects, one may create a customized deep learning model.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 6, 8, and 10 – 14 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 8 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horseman et al., herein after Horseman (U.S. Publication Number 2017/0162072 A1) in view of Popescu et al., herein after Popescu (WO 2022/242825 A1) further in view of Tzvieli et al., herein after Tzvieli (U.S. Publication Number 2018/0092587 A1) are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted June 30, 2026. In particular, prior art failed to disclose the limitations “wherein a normal range of the facial temperature change signal has a variable temperature threshold taking into account changes in a room temperature” and “configured to calculate an emotional level of the user in the emotional status based on the auxiliary feature after deducting a change in the facial temperature change due to the room temperature change”. The closest prior art search disclosed a set room temperature, and measuring a patient’s facial temperature to calculate an emotional state of the user. The prior art failed to disclose changes in the room temperature and the facial temperature change, after deducting a change in the facial temperature due the room temperature change.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues claims 1 and 9 are not directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner disagrees. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant’s claims are an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner respectfully submits that the PEG (Patent Eligibility Guidelines) of January 2019 recite that “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The present claims recite the abstract idea of determining a user’s emotional state from a facial image and facial temperature. The present claims recite determining the emotional status of a user according to the user’s physiological changes and a facial image, where the physiological changes can comprise changes in blood pressure, blood oxygen, pulse, and body temperature, wherein a normal range of the facial temperature change has a variable temperature threshold taking into account changes in a room temperature; analyzing the image when it is determined the emotional status meets a preset emotional status; and determining whether to issue an alert based on the result of the analysis. These features describe interactions with people, thus “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, as the alert is issued to a user or an emergency contact, indicating an evaluation of the facial image (paragraph 21 of the published specification). Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions with people, but for the recitation of generic components, then it is still in the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping.
The Applicant argues claims 1 and 9 are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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 KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/K.K.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights