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
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 101
Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a precise, multi-step computational pipeline that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed operation requires processing multiple distinct types of biological signals which require electronic acquisition and processing to generate usable signal data. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that acquiring and processing data amounts to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering which does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Applicant further argues that the step of estimating signal quality values for each modal entails quantitative characterization of signal properties such as noise characteristics and reliability through systematic computation over signal data. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as currently written, claims 1 and 15 do not require determining noise characteristics and reliability through systematic computation. As currently written, the claims require “circuitry configured to: estimate, for each modal of a first plurality of modals, a signal quality value”. Examiner notes that the human mind is fully capable of determining a signal quality value (qualitative or quantitative) of a sensed signal using observation, evaluation, and judgement. Further, generally reciting “circuitry” configured to estimate the signal quality value amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computer components.
Applicant further argues that the limitation “detect at least one modal of the first plurality of modals, wherein the at least one modal is associated with variation heterogeneity” reflects technical processing involving analysis of variation patterns across multiple signal types. Examiner respectfully disagrees as detecting at least one modal amounts to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering which fails to amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner further notes that the human mind is fully capable of analyzing variations in biological signals and determining that at least one modal exhibits variation that is different from other modals merely by observing, evaluating, and judging gathered data. Applicant states that the claims recite a structured, data-driven, computation over biological signal representations and argues that the human mind is not equipped to track, quantify, and compare such variation characteristics across multiple concurrently evolving biological signals with the required fidelity. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as currently written, the claims do not require the data to be concurrently analyzed nor do the claims require a level of fidelity when analyzing the data. Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Applicant further argues that the limitation “estimate a sensitivity of the at least one modal to a biological reaction based on the variation heterogeneity of the at least one modal” cannot be practically performed mentally or with pen and paper. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the human mind is fully capable of analyzing gathered data to determine a correlation between variation characteristics and biological reactions. Reciting “circuitry configured to: … estimate a sensitivity…” amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. Applicant further argues that the operation of “estimate an integral state of a user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals and the sensitivity of the at least one modal to the biological reaction” cannot be practically or reliably carried out through mere mental evaluation or manual techniques. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the human mind is fully capable of analyzing gathered data using observation, evaluation, and judgement.
Applicant further argues that the claims amount to more than a medical professional analyzing gathered data and further argues that a medical professional cannot perform the claimed operations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claims as a whole recite a mental process than can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, and judgement.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole provide a technical improvement to the field of multi-modal signal processing for estimating a state of a user. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claims as a whole amount to nothing more than gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques which fails to show improvement to a technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Step 2B
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements that operate together in a specific, coordinated manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 1 as currently written requires “a first plurality of modals” and “a second plurality of modals” but does not require the two to be specifically arranged. In addition, a “plurality of modals” are recited at a high level of generality and considered to be well known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Geva et al (US 2017/0027521) [0044] and Abrahamsson et al (US 2014/0343885) [0042].
Applicant further argues that the operations recited in claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art because each operation is conditional upon specific data. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claim as a whole fails to show an improvement to the technology because the claim omits any details as to how the circuitry solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claim invokes generic circuitry merely as a tool for estimating a state of a user rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “estimate, for each modal of a first plurality of modals a signal quality value…wherein the at least one modal is associated with variation heterogeneity, the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals, and the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals…and estimate an integral state of the user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals…” which is not described in the specification. The claim as currently written appears to require circuitry configured to: estimate a signal quality for each modal of a first plurality of modals and estimate a sensitivity if at least one modal based on a variation heterogeneity being different from a second variation for each modal of a second plurality of modals wherein the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals. A variation heterogeneity of at least one modal of a plurality of modals cannot be different from a variation of each modal of a second plurality of modals if the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals. There is no support in the instant specification for a first plurality of modals and a second plurality of modals. A review of the disclosure teaches the information processing device including one or a plurality of multimodal sensors [0018] and that the variation heterogeneity indicates that at least one of properties or degree of variation is different from a plurality of modals [0050]. Therefore, it appears applicant is adding new matter when reciting the circuitry being configured to: “estimate, for each modal of a first plurality of modals a signal quality value…wherein the at least one modal is associated with variation heterogeneity, the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals, and the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals…and estimate an integral state of the user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals.”
Claim 15 recites the limitations “estimating, for each modal of a first plurality of modals, a signal quality… the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals… estimating an integral state of the user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals…”. The claim as currently written appears to require at least one modal of the first plurality of modals to be associated with variation heterogeneity which represents that a first variation of the at least one modal is different from a second variation for each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals. A variation heterogeneity of at least one modal of a plurality of modals cannot be different from a variation of each modal of a second plurality of modals if the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals. There is no support in the instant specification for a first plurality of modals and a second plurality of modals. A review of the disclosure teaches the information processing device including one or a plurality of multimodal sensors [0018] and that the variation heterogeneity indicates that at least one of properties or degree of variation is different from a plurality of modals [0050]. Therefore, it appears applicant is adding new matter when reciting “estimating, for each modal of a first plurality of modals, a signal quality… the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals… estimating an integral state of the user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals…”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the first and second plurality of modals refer to the same group of modals or if they are separate groups of modals. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies. In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the first and second plurality of modals as referring to the same group of modals. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite:
“…estimate, for each modal of a [[first]] plurality of modals, a signal quality value,
wherein each modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals represents a corresponding type of a biological signal of a user;
detect at least one modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals,
wherein the at least one modal is associated with variation heterogeneity, the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for [[each]] a second modal of [[a second]] the plurality of modals, and
[[the first plurality of modals includes the second plurality of modals,]]
estimate a sensitivity of the at least one modal to a biological reaction based on the variation heterogeneity of the at least one modal; and
estimate an integral state of the user based on the signal quality value of each modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals and the sensitivity of the at least one modal to the biological reaction.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “…each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals…” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the first and second plurality of modals refer to the same group of modals or if they are separate groups of modals. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies. In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the first and second plurality of modals as referring to the same group of modals. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite:
estimating, for each modal of a [[first]] plurality of modals, a signal quality value, wherein each modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals represents a corresponding type of a biological signal of a user;
detecting at least one modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals, wherein the at least one modal is associated with variation heterogeneity,
the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for [[each]] a second modal of [[a second]] the plurality of modals [[of the first plurality of modals]],
estimating a sensitivity of the at least one modal to a biological reaction based on the variation heterogeneity of the at least one modal; and
estimating an integral state of the user of based on the signal quality value of each modal of the [[first]] plurality of modals and the sensitivity of the at least one modal to the biological reaction.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the limitation of “a corresponding signal type” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the corresponding signal is a signal measuring the same parameter (two heart rate signals) or if the corresponding signal is a signal measuring a different physiological parameter (heart rate signal and motion signal). In order to further advance prosecution, Examiner is interpreting a corresponding signal as a signal measuring a different physiological parameter. Examiner suggests amending the claims to further explain how the signals correspond to each other. Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of estimating an integral state of a user) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-15 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system and method for estimating an integral state of a user.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1-15, the recited steps are directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the limitations of “estimate…a signal quality”, “estimate a sensitivity…”, and “estimate an integral state…” are a process, as drafted, that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and judgment) under the broadest reasonable interpretation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1-15, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For claims 1 and 15, the additional limitation of “ a signal processing apparatus” and “circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the limitation of “detect at least one modal” amounts to nothing more than the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
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, the additional limitation “detect at least one modal” is directed to the pre-solution activity of mere data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. In addition, a “plurality of modals” are recited at a high level of generality and considered to be well known, routine, and conventional in the art. For examples, see Geva et al (US 2017/0027521) [0044] and Abrahamsson et al (US 2014/0343885) [0042].
Dependent claims 2-14 are further directed to the abstract idea. The above-mentioned claims do not introduce any additional elements which amount to significantly more under the Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B analyses.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior Art
While claims 1 and 15 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112, Examiner notes that no prior art rejections have been made. Examiner has not found any prior art that teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claims 1 and 15. Specifically, Examiner has not found any prior art that teaches:
“the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals,
estimating a sensitivity of the at least one modal to a biological reaction based on the variation heterogeneity of the at least one modal; and
estimating an integral state of the user of based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals and the sensitivity of the at least one modal to the biological reaction”.
Geva et al (US 2017/0027521) discloses validation sensors for controlling the validity status of a physiological parameter measurement [0053], but fails to disclose the variation heterogeneity represents that a first variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for the at least one modal is different from a second variation of the corresponding type of the biological signal for each modal of a second plurality of modals of the first plurality of modals, estimating a sensitivity of the at least one modal to a biological reaction based on the variation heterogeneity of the at least one modal; and estimating an integral state of the user of based on the signal quality value of each modal of the first plurality of modals and the sensitivity of the at least one modal to the biological reaction.
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 WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights