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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, in that the claims recite technical processing and visualization of biological sensor data involving the processing of biological signals. Examiner asserts that the processing of the biological signals recites, under broadest reasonable interpretation, an analysis that can be displayed or presented to another user, and therefore is directed to a social activity such as teaching. Applicant further argues that the steps recite a specific technical solution for processing and displaying biological information, not an abstract concept. Examiner further asserts that as noted in the Step 2A Prong One analysis presented below, there is no indication of a “specific technical solution” with the steps as presented in claim 1 regarding the processing or displaying.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, in that the claims are similar to that of Example 37 demonstrating a specific and improved user interface used to display information in a specific manner. Examiner further asserts that as noted in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis presented below, the recitation of the user interface is for the use of it as a tool for the mere insignificant computer implementation and does not recite a technical improvement related to user interfaces as Example 37. The supposed improvement of enabling counselors to understand a patient’s psychological state in real time during counseling is merely the result of generic computer automation and is not a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, in that the claims are similar to that of Example 40 demonstrating a collection of steps of the extra solution activity to show the practical application. Examiner asserts that as noted in Step 2 A Prong 2 presented below, the elements when analyzed in combination does not recite a technical improvement nor a practical application. The combination of the additional elements recites insignificant pre solution activity and computer implementation that does not demonstrate a specific technology improvement related to biological information processing systems. Applicant further argues the Example 42 is analogous to the instant application, in that the sharing of stress values during counseling in real time through the display is a technical improvement. Examiner further asserts that Example 42 recites a specific technical improvement related to the real time standardizing of the formation of information for sharing, however the instant application does not demonstrate this. Applicant further argues that “real time” display of the change in stress value, the display of information and having the information readily available, inferring the state during counseling, and visually understanding the trend in a short time recite technical improvements. Examiner further asserts that these supposed improvements of “real time” analysis and visualization are abstract idea improvements from the result of generic computer implementation, See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Applicant further argues that the claim recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner further asserts that as analyzed under Step 2B in the rejection presented below, there is no indication of a specific ordered combination of elements that perform activities that are not well understood, routine, and conventional. As noted previously, the supposed improvement related to assisting the counselor to estimate the psychological state of the counseling subject recites an improvement to the abstract idea by using these elements that are generic and well understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1), the Examiner agrees and therefore this rejection is withdrawn.
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 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 17, 18 are related to systems, and claim 19 is also related to a method. Claims 1-16 are related to a “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a biological information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising:
obtaining biological information of a user from a biological information obtainment device;
causing a display device to display both a waveform indicating time-series change in the biological information and information indicating a result of processing using a predetermined number of pieces of the biological information, wherein the information indicating the result of the processing is information indicating a trend of change in the biological information; and
indicating a stress value of the user during counseling in real time in time-series by displaying the trend of change in the biological information.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people because of the following:
the step of “display” both a waveform indicating time-series change in the biological information and information indicating a result of processing using a predetermined number of pieces of the biological information is a presentation of information to a user which is a social activity, and is thus part of the management of interactions between people,
wherein the information indicating the result of the processing is information indicating a trend of change in the biological information, which recites an abstract limitation further describing the abstract idea of the presentation of information by further describing the trend of change in the biological information,
indicating a stress value of the user during counseling in time-series by displaying the trend of change in the biological information, which recites further abstract limitations describing the interaction between people by indicating a stress value of the user during counseling in a time series and further displaying the trend of change in the information, further describing the presentation of information to the user.
The abstract idea recited in claims 17 and 19 are similar to that of claim 1.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., obtainment device) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 3 recites further abstract limitation describing the processed information as an image indicating an increase or decrease in value calculated, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites further abstract limitation of the displaying of the information as switching between a displayed and hidden state of the waveform indicating a time series change in the biological info, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites further abstract limitations of calculating an index value indicating a magnitude of psychological stress of the user and further displaying a waveform indicating the change in index over time, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites further abstract limitations of determining if the obtained biological info is valid and further calculating the index value of the valid info, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites further abstract limitations further describing the result of the processing as information indicating an average value of the index value, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites further abstract limitations of “displaying” the waveform of the counseling information as described, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites further abstract limitations describing the “displaying” of information as displaying an average value of the index value calculated from bio info obtain from a period of time from the counseling of the user, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites further abstract limitations of “dividing” the counselling period into sections and then further “displaying” the waveform indicating the time series change in the index value as claimed, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites further detail of the sections that are obtained by dividing the periods by scenarios, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 14 recites further abstract limitations of “displaying” the information indicating the event occurs on the waveform as claimed, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 15 recites further abstract limitation describing the “displaying” the image data obtained by capturing the user together with both the waveform indicating the time series change in the bio info and the info indicating the result of the processing using the predetermined number of pieces of the bio info, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 16 recites further abstract limitations of “displaying” a waveform indicating time series change in the bio info and info indicating a result of processing using a predetermined number of pieces of the bio info, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a biological information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
obtaining biological information of a user from a biological information obtainment device; (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.)
causing a display device to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) display both a waveform indicating time-series change in the biological information and information indicating a result of processing using a predetermined number of pieces of the biological information, wherein the information indicating the result of the processing is information indicating a trend of change in the biological information; and
indicating a stress value of the user during counseling in real time (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) in time-series by displaying the trend of change in the biological information..
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a biological information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process, and use of the display device, and the real-time nature of indicating a stress value, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0031] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic computing device with a recording medium. [0030, 0041] recites the use of the generic display device. [0016] recites the “real time” nature of the step of the process using the display, however this is merely the result of automation using the generic computing device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining biological information of a user from a biological information obtainment device, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0012, 0013] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the obtainment device for obtaining the biological information. The use of the obtainment device is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Claim 17 additionally recites an information processing device, comprising a processor and a memory storing one or more programs. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [Figure 3, 0029] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic information processing device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, claim 19 recites a biological information processing system including an information processing device configured to communicate with a biological information obtainment device. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0048] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic information processing system with the processing device with generic communication with the generic information obtainment device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to display both a waveform indicating time-series change in the biological information and information indicating a result of processing, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 8 recites further detail of the obtained biological information that is obtained as being obtained for a counseling period during when the user was receiving counseling, however this detail merely explains the insignificant pre solution activity. Claim 9 recites further additional elements of storing the counseling information and the waveform information in a storage part, which recites limitations that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components and further the storage of the obtained info which recites the insignificant pre solution activity. Claim 13 recites further insignificant pre solution activity of data gathering by receiving input text data that is included in the obtained counseling information. Claim 14 recite further insignificant pre solution activity of storing the data of the occurrence of an event during the obtained biological information. Claim 16 recites the generic use of “facial recognition” as a tool to be used for the abstract idea and recites mere computer implementation. Claim 18 recites the generic computer implementation of the info processing device that communicates with the bio info obtainment device, however these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation of A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a biological information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process, and use of the display device and the real-time nature of indicating a stress value, and the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0031] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic computing device with a recording medium. [0030, 0041] recites the use of the generic display device. [0016] recites the “real time” nature of the step of the process using the display, however this is merely the result of automation using the generic computing device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining biological information of a user from a biological information obtainment device of claim 1, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [0012, 0013] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the obtainment device for obtaining the biological information. The use of the obtainment device is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities. [0033] of the Applicant’s Specification further recites the storage of the biological data that is retrieved, and the device sends the information to the processing device to obtain the biological information as recited in [0048]; the use of this technology recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 additionally recites an information processing device, comprising a processor and a memory storing one or more programs. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [Figure 3, 0029] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic information processing device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, claim 19 recites a biological information processing system including an information processing device configured to communicate with a biological information obtainment device. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [0048] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the generic information processing system with the processing device with generic communication with the generic information obtainment device. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The communication and transmission or forwarding of biological information to the information processing device recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The following previously recited references have been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejection:
US 20200302825 A1 to Sachs et al. teaches of a system for tracking physiological data for a patient during a therapy session involving displaying images to the user for therapeutics.
US-20210401338-A1 to Flickinger teaches of gathering data of a user’s physical features to estimate emotional state.
WO-2021195316-A1 to Narayanan et al. teaches of a system for collecting sensor data for a user during sleep and determining the efficacy of a treatment.
NPL “Stress detection in computer users through non-invasive monitoring of physiological signals” to Zhai et al. teaches of gathering biometric data of a subject to be used as input for a machine learning model to determine correlations with the emotional state of the subject
These references do not teach limitations of the current invention individually nor in combination, including but not limited to: “causing a display device to display both a waveform indicating time-series change in the biological information and information indicating a result of processing using a predetermined number of pieces of the biological information, wherein the information indicating the result of the processing is information indicating a trend of change in the biological information; and indicating a stress value of the user during counseling in real time in time-series by displaying the trend of change in the biological information”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights