DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a result “from the trained machine learning model” (or variations thereof) which indicates that a generic algorithm is utilized in a manner to “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 48, Claim 1). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in consideration of the three criteria discussed in that portion of the MPEP: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, (2) Whether the claim invokes computers as a tool, and (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception, one must conclude that (1) Yes, the claims are only referring to the idea of a solution/outcome, (2) the computer is merely a tool for executing the judicial exception, and (3) the exception is so broadly written as to encompass any and every iteration of the algorithm/model. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because beyond the exception, the claims merely refer to pre-solution data gathering, by a generic gas sensor. Certain dependent claims refer to additional pre- or post- solution details, but none serve to integrate the exception into a practical application nor are any claim elements setting forth limitations that are significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 7, 11, 15 – 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. “Feasibility of Emotion Recognition…” (cited by Applicant). Takahashi et al. teach a measurement arrangement (Figure 1), wherein a gas sensor (Figure 2) measures a variety of components of exhaled breath and analysis thereof by a trained artificial neural network (ANN) provides an indication of the subject’s emotion, wherein the processor can report, or otherwise respond to, the determined emotion. Takahashi et al. provide particular details of the system, including the sensor (“II. Breath Gas Sensing System”), the analysis algorithm (“III. Experiments of Computational Emotion Recognition” – with particular attention to the ANN and SVM aspects). Further, Takahashi et al. refer to training of the ANN (p. 628, column 2) and SVM (p. 629, column 2) models.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8 – 10, 12 – 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. as applied to claims 1, 4 – 7, 11, 15 – 17, and 19 above. As discussed, Takahashi et al. teach all of the features of the claimed invention expect for detailing a wearable sensor embodiment, inclusion of additional data/information as inputs to the neural network model, each particular format of a system output or inclusion of an additional component with an API as part of generating the output. However, without a showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been within the skill level of the art to have implemented the arrangement of Takahashi et al. with a wearable sensor, since this is known to provide greater mobility for a user; to train the model to respond to additional factors known to correspond to emotional state of a subject, since this is known to increase model accuracy; with any known output elements, including an API, and further to format the output in any of a variety of known manners to report the information in a desired manner, since it has generally been held to incorporate known elements/procedures into a device. Additionally, although Takahashi et al. generally discuss training of their models, they do not provide specific details of the training, but it would have been within the skill level of the art to include standard collection of training data, consistent with the necessary info for training the model when implementing the invention. Finally, without a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been within the skill of the art to modify Takahashi et al. to further provide inputs for making user-specific updates/adjustments to better conform model to each particular user, consistent with known practice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanriover et al. (USPN 11,006,875) teach an arrangement for emotion prediction based on breathing patterns. Frank et al. (USPGPub 2019/0108191) teach affective response-based recommendations, which may include collecting a variety of measured values (paragraph [0007]) as part of the analysis. Quy (USPGPub 2021/0118323) teach a method and apparatus for interactive monitoring of emotion during teletherapy, utilizing biosensors as part of determining emotion of the user (paragraph [0015]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights