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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 12/18/2025 in which claims 1, 17, and 20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 of predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual without significantly more.
For 101 analysis, Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention described in independent claims 1 and 17.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 is directed to a virtual test platform for predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual, the virtual test platform comprising: a simulated environment generator that creates a computer-generated environment representing a workspace viewed by the individual, wherein the individual is required to complete an assigned task within the workspace simulated by the computer-generated environment, and wherein the workspace represents an autonomous vehicle and the individual represents an occupant of the autonomous vehicle; at least one of the following: one or more physiological sensors that monitor physiological measurements of the individual and an input device receiving user input generated by the individual, wherein the individual answers one or more survey questions either while performing or after performing the assigned task by the input device; and one or more controllers in electronic communication with the simulated environment generator, the one or more physiological sensors, and the input device, wherein the one or more controllers include one or more processors that execute instructions to: instruct the simulated environment generator to create the computer-generated environment representing the workspace; predict the specific cognitive-affective state of the individual as the individual completes the assigned task created by the simulated environment generator based on at least one of the following: the physiological measurements from the one or more physiological sensors and user input received from the input device indicative of answers to the one or more survey questions from the individual; and formulate one or more recommendations to implement the workspace in a real-world environment based on the specific cognitive-affective state of the individual, wherein the one or more recommendations include values for turning speed, acceleration, braking, and merge distances for the autonomous vehicle that result in a neutral level of stress for the individual. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual which may correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of generator, computer-generated, sensors, an autonomous vehicle, an input device, electronic, and processors do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of generator, computer-generated, sensors, an autonomous vehicle, an input device, electronic, and processors result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of generator, computer-generated, sensors, an autonomous vehicle, an input device, electronic, and processors are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements of generator, computer-generated, sensors, an autonomous vehicle, an input device, electronic, and processors do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of generator, computer-generated, sensors, an autonomous vehicle, an input device, electronic, and processors are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent-eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claim 17 and hence rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 17 and hence corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-16 and 18-19 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-19 are not patent-eligible.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 20 is directed to a virtual test platform for predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual, the virtual test platform comprising: a simulated environment generator that creates a computer-generated environment representing a workspace viewed by the individual, wherein the individual is required to complete an assigned task within the workspace simulated by the computer-generated environment, and wherein the workspace includes a robotic arm including a gripper, wherein the robotic arm is guided by an overhead rail system; one or more physiological sensors that monitor physiological measurements of the individual; and one or more controllers in electronic communication with the simulated environment generator and the one or more physiological sensors, wherein the one or more controllers include one or more processors that execute instructions to: instruct the simulated environment generator to create the computer-generated environment representing the workspace; predict the specific cognitive-affective state of the individual as the individual completes the assigned task created by the simulated environment generator based on the physiological measurements from the one or more physiological sensors; instruct the simulated environment generator to modify one or more experimental parameters related to the assigned task within the workspace, wherein the individual is required to re-execute the assigned task within the workspace when the one or more experimental parameters that are related to the assigned task are modified; continue to monitor the physiological measurements of the individual collected by the one or more physiological sensors as the one or more experimental parameters are modified; and formulate one or more recommendations to implement the workspace in a real-world environment based on the specific cognitive-affective state of the individual, wherein the one or more recommendations include values for speeds for the robotic arm and measurements related to a stopping distance measured between the robotic arm and the individual that result in a neutral level of comfort for the individual. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea of predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual which may correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The additional elements of a generator, computer-generated, a robotic arm, a gripper, rail system, sensors, controllers, electronic, and processors do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 20 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a generator, computer-generated, a robotic arm, a gripper, rail system, sensors, controllers, electronic, and processors result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a generator, computer-generated, a robotic arm, a gripper, rail system, sensors, controllers, electronic, and processors are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements of a generator, computer-generated, a robotic arm, a gripper, rail system, sensors, controllers, electronic, and processors do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a generator, computer-generated, a robotic arm, a gripper, rail system, sensors, controllers, electronic, and processors are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 20 is not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of the argument/amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant submits that the amendments made to the claims reflect an improvement in the technical field of virtual test platforms, and in particular the ability to account for the individual’s cognitive-effect state while completing a task (i.e., an occupant in an autonomous vehicle).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that by introducing an autonomous vehicle as the workspace in a virtual test platform and including values for turning speed, acceleration, braking, and merge distances for the autonomous vehicle and determine the stress level of the individual does not result in improvement to the additional elements of an autonomous vehicle. It simply tests how the individual is going to respond under the simulated test conditions. Knowing that it result in a neutral level of stress for the individual is not a technical improvement. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea of predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual. The improvement to an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the amendments made to claim 20 also reflect an improvement in the technical field of virtual test platforms. In particular, claim 20 reflects an improvement in the ability to account for the individual’s cognitive-affective state while completing an assigned task within the workspace, where the workspace represents a robotic arm assembly.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that by introducing a robotic arm including a gripper as the workspace in a virtual test platform and including values for speeds for robotic arm and measurements related to a stopping distance measured between the robotic arm and the individual and determine the stress level of the individual does not result in improvement to the additional elements of a robotic arm. It simply tests how the individual is going to respond under the simulated test conditions. Knowing that it result in a neutral level of stress for the individual is not a technical improvement. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea of predicting a specific cognitive-affective state of an individual. The improvement to an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684