DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on May 3, 2024 Claims 1-14 havebeen examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 5/3/2024, has been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-14 are drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-14 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1 recites a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual when the individual is contacting a receiving surface of a device comprising a pressure sensor comprising a plurality of elemental gauges, each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10, the pressure sensor being responsive to a pressure on the receiving surface and delivering a signal to a computer comprising and acquisition and digitization board a non-transient memory and a computer program configured for processing the signal delivered by the pressure sensor, the method comprising steps of: acquiring and digitizing a signal delivered by an elemental gauge of the pressure sensor the signal comprising a pseudo-periodic part; in a preprocessing step, extracting the pseudo-periodic part of the signal; filtering by a bandpass filter with cut-off frequencies of 0.5Hz and 20Hz the pseudo-periodic part of the signal obtained in the preprocessing step to obtain a filtered signal; selecting the filtered signal having a best signal-to-noise ratio among the plurality of elemental gauges; exploring the filtered signal by a sliding window and detecting, in the sliding window, two patterns corresponding to heartbeats, measuring an Inter-Beat interval of time between the two patterns; and recording in a heartbeat timestamped file each Inter-Beat Interval (IBI) thus obtained and a corresponding date of measurement. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A method for assessing a state of stress of an individual when the individual is contacting a receiving surface of a device comprising a pressure sensor comprising a plurality of elemental gauges, each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10, the pressure sensor being responsive to a pressure on the receiving surface and delivering a signal to a computer comprising and acquisition and digitization board a non-transient memory and a computer program configured for processing the signal delivered by the pressure sensor, the method comprising steps of: acquiring and digitizing a signal delivered by an elemental gauge of the pressure sensor the signal comprising a pseudo-periodic part; in a preprocessing step, extracting the pseudo-periodic part of the signal; filtering by a bandpass filter with cut-off frequencies of 0.5Hz and 20Hz the pseudo-periodic part of the signal obtained in the preprocessing step to obtain a filtered signal; selecting the filtered signal having a best signal-to-noise ratio among the plurality of elemental gauges; exploring the filtered signal by a sliding window and detecting, in the sliding window, two patterns corresponding to heartbeats, measuring an Inter-Beat interval of time between the two patterns; and recording in a heartbeat timestamped file each Inter-Beat Interval (IBI) thus obtained and a corresponding date of measurement.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of pressure sensors and elemental gauges (interpreted as strain sensors), per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited method for assessing a state of stress, comprising the steps of: measuring and delivering a signal using a pressure sensor and a strain sensor, acquiring and digitizing a signal; extracting part of the signal; filtering a signal; selecting a filtered signal; identifying patterns corresponding to heartbeats within the filtered signal; recording the date and time of each identified heartbeat (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps of the method applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (acquiring a signal, selecting a signal, identifying patterns corresponding to heartbeats within a signal, recording the date and time of identified heartbeats), evaluation (filtering a signal), and/or judgement (selecting a filtered signal)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract ideas of measuring and delivering a signal using a pressure sensor and a strain sensor, acquiring and digitizing a signal; extracting part of the signal; filtering a signal; selecting a filtered signal; identifying patterns corresponding to heartbeats within the filtered signal; and recording the date and time of each identified heartbeat (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring 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.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “acquiring and digitizing a signal”, “extracting part of the signal”, “filtering a signal”, “selecting a filtered signal”, “identifying patterns within the signal”, and “recording the date and time of each identified pattern” etc. (Claim(s) 1) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “acquiring and digitizing a signal”, “extracting part of the signal”, “filtering a signal”, “selecting a filtered signal”, “identifying patterns within the signal”, and “recording the date and time of each identified pattern” etc. Independent Claim(s) 1, and dependent claims 2-14 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., acquiring and digitizing a signal, extracting part of the signal, filtering a signal, selecting a filtered signal, identifying patterns within the signal, and recording the date and time of each identified pattern etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of receiving input, verifying input, and displaying an image, (Claim(s) 1), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-14 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, and dependent claims 2-14, are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of acquiring and digitizing a signal, extracting part of the signal, filtering a signal, selecting a filtered signal, identifying patterns within the signal, and recording the date and time of each identified pattern (Claim(s) 1), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0061] acknowledges that “This processing is carried out by computer means including, according to a known general configuration, means of acquisition and digitization of signals, means of calculation and means of non-transient memory, all being controlled by a computer program” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-14 are dependent from claim 1 and include all the limitations of the independent claims, but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-5, and 12 recite clarifications of a strain sensor (elemental gauge) comprising an assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in an electrically insulating ligand, having the gauge facto be a specific value (80), the device being in the form of a chair, the device being in the form of a mattress, and the device being in the form of an aircraft seat. Such clarifications, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 6-9, 13, and 14 recite clarifications of computing different indices over a period of time, categorizing data based on calculations/indices, utilizing various algorithms to train data, recording data during a test, defining a time window to collect and record data, stopping recording of data when sensor readings are below a threshold value for an extended period of time, and storing data in a storage device (flight data recorder). The limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract ideas of acquiring and digitizing a signal, extracting part of the signal, filtering a signal, selecting a filtered signal, identifying patterns within the signal, and recording the date and time of each identified pattern, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 10 and 11 recite further abstract ideas including subjecting a selection of subjects to perform an exercise (certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA)) and having them perform the exercises within a limited period of time (CMOHA). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including recording data in a heartbeat timestamped file with a corresponding date measurement. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1) in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kortelainen discloses a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual when the individual is contacting a receiving surface of a device comprising a pressure sensor comprising a plurality of elemental gauges ([0011] The present invention is based on a multichannel pressure sensing sensor which may be integrated e.g. into a bed mattress, to collect BCG signal, and heart inter beat interval extracted from this multichannel BCG data with the cepstrum method),
each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10 ([0014] There are a number of various suitable measuring arrangements for pressure sensitive foils, such as force sensing resistors (FSR), deformation of optical fibers, capacitive foils, piezoelectric polymer foil PVDF and electretfoil Emfit. The multichannel pressure sensing sensor is usually a matrix-type, row-type or column-type multi-electrode multi-channel pressure sensing sensor),
the pressure sensor being responsive to a pressure on the receiving surface and delivering a signal to a computer comprising and acquisition and digitization board a non-transient memory and a computer program configured for processing the signal delivered by the pressure sensor ([0015] In a preferred embodiment, the number of electrodes is about 8 channels and the size of multichannel sensor in bed mattress covers (pressure sensor) the area of about 1 meter in the length and 0.6 meter in the width. The shape of electrodes can be simply stripes in the width direction for a flatbed mattress or more optimized shape for integration into a seat. The number of measurement channels of the multichannel pressure sensing sensor corresponds to the number of electrodes; [0017] The electronics used in the present invention is based on a multichannel signal converter, which can produce multiple digital signals representing a multiple of analogue signals (processing of signal(s) from pressure sensor)), the method comprising steps of:
acquiring and digitizing a signal delivered by an elemental gauge of the pressure sensor the signal comprising a pseudo-periodic part ([0013] The BCG is a vital sign in the 1... 20 Hz frequency range which is caused by the mechanical movement of the heart and the pulsating blood flow and it can be recorded, for example, by a pressure sensing sensor from the pressing force of the body. BCG signal includes also respiratory movements, body movement artifacts and external vibration which make the detection of heart IBI more difficult; [0017] The electronics used in the present invention is based on a multichannel signal converter, which can produce multiple digital signals representing a multiple of analogue signals (digitizing a signal); [0050] The first heart IBI result 30.1 with the grey curve is 1.14 seconds and the following heart IBI result 30.2 is 0.96 seconds (difference in time indicates pseudo-periodic part));
in a preprocessing step, extracting the pseudo-periodic part of the signal ([0016] Advantageously, the method further comprises generating the cardiac component signal by separating the cardiac component signal (heartbeats are inherently pseudo-periodic) from a respiratory component signal);
filtering by a bandpass filter with cut-off frequencies of 0.5Hz and 20Hz the pseudo-periodic part of the signal obtained in the preprocessing step to obtain a filtered signal ([0013] The BCG is a vital sign in the 1... 20 Hz frequency range which is caused by the mechanical movement of the heart and the pulsating blood flow and it can be recorded (.5 Hz outside of the frequency range is not patentably significant to overcome the prior art));
selecting the filtered signal having a best signal-to-noise ratio among the plurality of elemental gauges ([0049] The optimal selection criteria between the different heart IBI estimates with the alternative method 25 would firstly be based on the strength and sharpness of the found cepstra peaks, and secondly on how well they correspond to the neighboring IBI estimates (comparing the cepstra peaks is a way to “filter” out the noise and thereby determine the best “signal-to-noise” ratio));
exploring the filtered signal by a sliding window and detecting, in the sliding window, two patterns corresponding to heartbeats, measuring an Inter-Beat interval of time between the two patterns ([0011] by applying Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) for short time windows (sliding windows) including at least one pair of consecutive heart beats); and
recording in a heartbeat timestamped file each Inter-Beat Interval (IBI) thus obtained and a corresponding date of measurement ([0053] FIG. 6 shows the final heart IBI result 60 of selected peak maximum 51 locations from the time-cepstrum graph 50 (timestamp is a digital record of time of an event, graph plots points at various points in time and is therefore “timestamped”) of FIG. 5 during 70 seconds. The point G shows the lowest heart IBI value).
However, Kortelainen is not relied upon disclosing each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10.
Severac teaches each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10 ([0065] In this exemplary embodiment, the gauge factor reaches the value of 85 (at least 10) on the explored strain range from -1% for compression to 1% pulling strain with resistance R0 of 2430.10 Ohm in the absence of strain).
Kortelainen and Severac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Kortelainen utilizes the tactile surface manufactured by Severac. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen, further including each elemental gauge having a gauge factor of at least 10 as taught by Severac for the purpose of having a very sensitive strain gauge (Severac, [0065]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kortelainen discloses wherein the elemental gauge comprises an assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in an electrically insulating ligand and two electrically conductive comb shaped electrodes being deposited on the assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in a nested interdigitated configuration1.
However, Kortelainen is not relied upon disclosing the elemental gauge comprises an assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in an electrically insulating ligand and two electrically conductive comb shaped electrodes being deposited on the assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in a nested interdigitated configuration.
Severac teaches the elemental gauge comprises an assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in an electrically insulating ligand and two electrically conductive comb shaped electrodes being deposited on the assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in a nested interdigitated configuration ([0064] the electrodes of a sensor (310) of said tactile Surface are organized in an array of electrodes (571,572) in nested comb arrangements, known as interdigitated arrangements… That phenomenon of conduction by tunnel effect depends on the chemical nature of the ligand, and when the bond between the ligand and the Surface of the nanoparticles is covalent, as for example a metal-O-P bond in the case of a phosphonic acid ligand with ITO nanoparticles, then the length of the ligand molecule has little influence on conduction by tunnel effect between the nanoparticles).
Kortelainen and Severac are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Kortelainen utilizes the tactile surface manufactured by Severac. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen, further including an elemental gauge comprising an assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in an electrically insulating ligand and two electrically conductive comb shaped electrodes being deposited on the assembly of electrically conductive nanoparticles in a nested interdigitated configuration as taught by Severac for the purpose of making it possible, with the same gauge functionality and the same quantity of nanoparticles deposited on the substrate, to make a more compact device (Severac, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kortelainen is not relied upon disclosing wherein the gauge factor of the elemental gauge is at least 80.
However, Severac teaches wherein the gauge factor of the elemental gauge is at least 80 ([0085] In this exemplary embodiment, the gauge factor reaches the value of 85 (at least 80) on the explored strain range from -1% for compression to 1% pulling strain with resistance R0 of 2430.10 Ohm in the absence of strain).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1), in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1), and in further view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kortelainen discloses wherein the device is in a form of a chair comprising a backrest and a seat and comprising a backrest pressure sensor in the backrest and a seat pressure sensor in the seat ([0016] The sensor foil can also be integrated into a seat to monitor the heart IBI and HRV of a seated person e.g. at home, at work or during travel).
However, Kortelainen and Severac are not relied upon disclosing a backrest pressure sensor in the backrest.
Benson teaches a backrest pressure sensor in the backrest ([0011] a seat back supporting a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) receivers that cooperate with an ECG mat included in the seat bottom to sense electrical signals in the occupant through the occupant’s clothing to provide an ECG signal).
Kortelainen and Benson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of utilizing sensors to determine physiological attributes, conditions, and/or states of an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen as previously modified by Severac, further including a backrest pressure sensor in the backrest as taught by Benson for the purpose of ensuring the ECG sensor is capable of sensing the occupant's electrical signals through multiple layers of clothing (Benson, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kortelainen discloses wherein the device is in a form of a mattress comprising a sleeping surface and wherein the sleeping surface is the receiving surface ([0015] In a preferred embodiment, the number of electrodes is about 8 channels and the size of multichannel sensor in bed mattress (sleeping surface) covers the area of about 1 meter in the length and 0.6 meter in the width).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1) in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1) and in further view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kortealinen discloses the steps of: from the heartbeat timestamped file computing at least three indices over an assessment time window comprising an average value of the IBI over the assessment time window, a standard deviation of the IBI over the assessment time window and a Baevsky’s stress Index from the IBI over the assessment time window; and
categorizing the state of stress of the individual based on the at least 3 indices and a stress assessment program implementing a trained algorithm, among an increasing stress, a decreasing stress and a neutral state;
wherein the assessment time window is comprised between 25 seconds and 250 seconds ([0052] FIG. 5 shows a time-cepstrum 3D graph 50 of the alternative method 25 during 70 seconds time period (70 seconds is between 25 seconds and 250 seconds)).
However, Kortelainen and Severac are not relied upon disclosing from the heartbeat timestamped file computing at least three indices over an assessment time window comprising an average value of the IBI over the assessment time window, a standard deviation of the IBI over the assessment time window and a Baevsky’s stress Index from the IBI over the assessment time window; and categorizing the state of stress of the individual based on the at least 3 indices and a stress assessment program implementing a trained algorithm, among an increasing stress, a decreasing stress and a neutral state.
Benson teaches from the heartbeat timestamped file computing at least three indices over an assessment time window comprising an average value of the IBI over the assessment time window, a standard deviation of the IBI over the assessment time window and a Baevsky’s stress Index from the IBI over the assessment time window ([0023] FIG. 12 is a diagrammatic view of a heart rate variability determination process including the steps of taking the derivative of the average heart rate, determine the Heart Rate Variability (HRV) spectrum, determining a ratio of high frequencies to low frequencies, and determining the impact of adrenaline and other neurotransmitters on heart rate and suggesting that understanding which neurotransmitters are affecting heart rate may be used to determine a stress level of the occupant (Baevsky’s Stress Index, a well-established HRV metric, measures stress and determining a stress level of an occupant is analogous to using Baevsky’s stress index to determine a level of stress)); and
categorizing the state of stress of the individual based on the at least 3 indices and a stress assessment program implementing a trained algorithm, among an increasing stress, a decreasing stress and a neutral state ([0070] In stress-determination step 110, computer 54 identifies that the occupant is under stress when adrenaline is increasing, [0091] In another example, computer 54 may detect increased tension and automatically engage one or more features to minimize the occupants tension (increased stress assessment); [0108] In one illustrative example, computer 54 may detect decreased energy and provide commands to the occupant to perform one or more stretching routines to maximize energy (decreased stress assessment); [0140] included in the vehicle associated with music play back. Computer 54 may use ECG sensors, Pulse Ox sensors, and GSR sensors to determine an emotional state (e.g., stress) of the occupant when listening to different songs (categorize state of stress)).
Kortelainen and Benson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of utilizing sensors to determine physiological attributes, conditions, and/or states of an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen as previously modified by Severac, further including a heartbeat timestamped file and categorizing the state of stress of an individual as taught by Benson for the purpose of advantageously having a very short start-up period and executing code very quickly (Benson, [0064]) and to determine an emotional state of an individual, awareness of an individual, alertness of an individual, and other suitable health and/or physiological indicators (Benson, [0074]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1), in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1), in view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1), and in further view of Kalkstein et al. (US 2020/0395129 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kortelainen in view of Severac in view of Benson discloses the method of claim 6.
However, Kortelainen, Severac, and Benson are not relied upon disclosing wherein the trained algorithm is an Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithm.
Kalkstein teaches wherein the trained algorithm is an Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithm ([0129] The gradient boosting classifier may be implemented as an XGBOOST (Extreme Gradient Boosting) classifier).
Kortelainen and Kalkstein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of interpreting a physiological state of an individual. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen as previously modified by Severac and Benson, further including wherein the trained algorithm is an Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithm as taught by Kalkstein for the purpose of improved performance compared to other classifiers (Kalkstein, [0130]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1), in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1), in view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1), and in further view of LaBelle et al. (US 2015/0238140 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kortelainen discloses wherein a training set for training the trained algorithm is built by:
subjecting a selection of subjects to a stress test comprising at least a neutral phase, an increasing stress phase and a decreasing stress phase ([0111] In another example, the computer 54 may automatically determine through various factors that certain locations lead to increase tension (increased stress) and other locations lead to decreased tension (decreased stress). As a result, computer 54 may attempt to automatically raise the energy level of the occupant when entering high tension locations and decrease tension of the occupant when entering low tension locations); and
continuously recording an IBI of the selection of subjects during their performance of the stress test;
wherein a duration of the stress test is comprised between 10 minutes and 30 minutes and the duration of each phase is at least 4 minutes2.
However, Kortelainen, Severac, and Benson are not relied upon disclosing continuously recording an IBI of the selection of subjects during their performance of the stress test
LaBelle teaches continuously recording an IBI of the selection of subjects during their performance of the stress test ([0014] The device can collect data continuously over an extended time period to provide a dataset useful for trending analysis of the subjects stress levels); and a stress test ([0015] The quantification of stress could be used in a variety of settings to assess the health of subjects during different activities, [0038] A device incorporating this tested method can be used as a supplementary method to better evaluate stress variations along with other methods).
Kortelainen and LaBelle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of non-invasive physiological assessment for health and stress assessment using a pressure sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen, previously modified by Benson, further including continuously recording the IBI of subjects during stress testing as taught by LaBelle for the purpose of providing a dataset useful for trending analysis of the subject’s stress levels (LaBelle, [0014]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kortelainen discloses wherein a continuous recording of an IBI of a subject is split in windows of a duration comprised between 25 seconds and 250 seconds, a beginning of each window being separated from a beginning of a previous window by 5 seconds, the at least 3 indices being computed for each window ([0049] which uses a large set of constant parameter DFT window functions for different cepstra, estimates and updates each of these constantly by shifting in time (sliding/split time windows); [0052] FIG. 5 shows a time-cepstrum 3D graph 50 of the alternative method 25 during 70 seconds time period (70 seconds is between 25 seconds and 250 seconds)).
However, Kortelainen, Severac, and Benson are not relied upon disclosing beginning of each window being separated from a beginning of a previous window by 5 seconds, the at least 3 indices being computed for each window.
LaBelle teaches beginning of each window being separated from a beginning of a previous window by 5 seconds, the at least 3 indices being computed for each window ([0022] Time domain measures derived directly from the lengths of IBIs are the mean IBI and the standard deviation of NN intervals (three indices are mean, standard deviation, and stress (would be a third index in stress assessment/stress monitoring applications)), [0026] performs a Fourier transform of the real-time data and uses a power spectrum density plot to establish frequency effects over a given time interval (say every 60 seconds of data, though other periods may be used) that then is correlated by an HRV algorithm into a single data point (every 60 seconds) and is updated continuously, as long as the device is worn3).
Regarding Claim 10, Kortelainen, Severac, and LaBelle are not relied upon disclosing wherein the increasing stress phase is obtained by subjecting the selection of subjects to a stressor exercise.
Benson teaches wherein the increasing stress phase is obtained by subjecting the selection of subjects to a stressor exercise ([0098] In one illustrative example, computer 54 may detect increased tension and provide commands to the occupant to perform one or more stretching routines to minimize tension).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1), in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1), in view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1), in view of LaBelle et al. (US 2015/0238140 A1), and in further view of Fine et al. (US 2021/0093204 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kortelainen, Severac, Benson, and LaBelle are not relied upon disclosing wherein the stressor exercise comprises a modified Stroop test wherein the selection of subjects is given a limited time to perform each Stroop test exercise.
Fine teaches wherein the stressor exercise comprises a modified Stroop test wherein the selection of subjects is given a limited time to perform each Stroop test exercise ([0175] This was performed twice once before the ‘Stroop test’ when the subject was in a relative ‘low-stress state' and once 'during the troop test' (i.e when the subject is in a higher stress state due to the mental effort of the Stropp test).
Kortelainen and Fine are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of determining a physiological state of an individual by measuring factors such as heart rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen as previously modified by Severac, Benson, and LaBelle, further including wherein the stressor exercise comprises a modified Stroop test as taught by Fine for the purpose of measuring and corroborating that a subject's stress-state is ‘high mental stress’ (Fine, [0135]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kortelainen discloses wherein the device is in a form of an aircraft seat and the individual is seating on the aircraft seat, the method comprising a step of: If the state of stress of the individual is categorized as an increasing state of stress for more than an uninterrupted limited time set, triggering an alarm ([0016] The sensor foil can also be integrated into a seat to monitor the heart IBI and HRV of a seated person e.g. at home, at work or during travel (travel includes aircraft seats which are analogous to a seat or chair)).
However, Kortelainen, Severac, and LaBelle are not relied upon disclosing wherein the device is in a form of an aircraft seat and the individual is seating on the aircraft seat, the method comprising a step of: If the state of stress of the individual is categorized as an increasing state of stress for more than an uninterrupted limited time set, triggering an alarm.
Benson teaches wherein the device is in a form of an aircraft seat and the individual is seating on the aircraft seat ([0215] The occupant support system of any other clause, wherein the sensor is located between a cushion of the seat and a trim layer of the seat, the sensor is further configured to sense the physiological attribute through the at least one impeding barrier comprising at least one of the trim layer and occupants clothing and the trim layer (device being embedded within the seat is analogous to the device being in “a form of an aircraft seat”)).
However, Benson is not relied upon teaching if the state of stress of the individual is categorized as an increasing state of stress for more than an uninterrupted limited time set, trigger an alarm.
Fine teaches if the state of stress of the individual is categorized as an increasing state of stress for more than an uninterrupted limited time set, trigger an alarm ([0118] In yet another example, an alert-signal or alarm signal may be generated—e.g. in response to a determining of an apnea-incident or a ‘bad’ mood or stress-state).
Regarding Claim 13, Kortelainen discloses wherein a recording of the heartbeat timestamped file is stopped if an intensity of the pseudo-periodic part of the signal of the plurality of elemental gauges remains under a minimum threshold for more than a given unoccupancy time ([0013] BCG signal includes also respiratory movements, body movement artifacts and external vibration which make the detection of heart IBI more difficult (indicative of sensor being occupied, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to stop recording the heartbeat timestamped file if the sensor was unoccupied for more than a given period of time, meaning that the intensity of the pseudo-periodic part of the signal of the plurality of elemental gauges remains under a minimum threshold for more than given occupancy time), [0204] For example, server 3205 may determine over time that a user is in a relaxed state (intensity under a threshold) when a seat is slightly declined from a normal seat position during slower driving speeds and experiences reduced stress when the seat is inclined slightly during faster driving speeds. By learning a user's physiological states under various driving/vehicle conditions, server 3205 may provide further improved adjustments to a user's seat and/or vehicle's features to better the user's driving experience).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortelainen (US 2010/0249628 A1), in view of Severac et al. (US 2015/0205481 A1), in view of Benson et al. (US 2016/0354027 A1), in view of LaBelle et al. (US 2015/0238140 A1), and in further view of Saigh et al. (US 2015/0230072 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kortelainen discloses wherein the device is in a form of an aircraft seat and the individual is a pilot seating on the aircraft seat, the heartbeat timestamped file being recorded in a flight data recorder ([0016] The sensor foil can also be integrated into a seat to monitor the heart IBI and HRV of a seated person e.g. at home, at work or during travel (a seated person in travel includes pilots and/or passengers), [0017] Sensor data of channels is logged (analogous to being recorded within a file) with adequate sampling rate, for example 50 Hz).
However, Kortelainen, Severac, and LaBelle are not relied upon disclosing the heartbeat timestamped file being recorded in a flight data recorder.
Benson teaches timestamps ([0176] The process then proceeds to a resample operation 664 in which the timestamps of each IBI and the IBI buffer are then spline resampled to a fixed sampling rate).
However, Benson is not relied upon teaching the file being recorded in a flight data recorder.
Saigh teaches the file being recorded in a flight data recorder ([0019] The terminology “black box’ is commonly used to refer to a flight data recorder (FDR) or a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) that record aircraft data that can be recovered when an aircraft accident occurs).
Kortelainen and Saigh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of tracking one or more indicators of a user’s medical condition, such as heart rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for assessing a state of stress of an individual, as disclosed by Kortelainen as previously modified by Severac, Benson, and LaBelle, further including the file being recorded in a flight data recorder as taught by Saigh for the purpose recording aircraft data that can be recovered when an aircraft accident occurs (Saigh, [0019]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouwerkerk et al. (EP 3,594,962 A1) teaches a device, system, and method for determining the stress level of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Paragraph [0051] of Applicant’s specification states “These deposition techniques, both assemblies of nanoparticles and electrodes or electrical circuit elements, are known from the prior art, in particular from documents U.S. Pat. No.9,436,215 B2 and U.S. Pat. No.10,318,143 B2 which are hereby incorporated by reference”, which indicates that these methods are well known in the art. This applies to both Claims 2 and 3.
2 The selection of the three-phase protocol structure (increasing, neutral, and decreasing states of stress) and the duration parameters (10-30 minutes total; at least 4 minutes per phase) represent a routine experimental design choice for any stress induction study aimed at generating labeled trained data.
3 Splitting a continuous IBI recording into overlapping windows with a fixed 5-second advancement step to maximize the number of labeled training samples from a limited recording is a standard time-series feature extraction technique universally employed in HRV analysis. The specific window duration of 25 seconds to 250 seconds with a 5 second step size are routine design parameters.
Prosecution Insights