DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended; claim 20 has been canceled; and a new claim—claim 21—has been added. Thus, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 and 21 as a representative claim, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
a) acquiring data relating to a cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state of the at least one user, b) determining based on the data acquired in step a) an indication of a predicted user performance score at the defined point in time, by calculating a numerical performance score, c) comparing the predicted user performance score to a desired user performance score, and d) if the predicted user performance score indicates a predicted user performance falling short of a desired user performance indicated by the desired user performance score, e) selecting at least one activity and/or at least one time point or time range for performing an activity for adjusting the predicted user performance score to the desired user performance score or a tolerance range surrounding the desired user performance score, and f) [presenting] at least one prompt to the user prompting the user to perform the at least one selected activity and/or to perform an activity at the at least selected one time point or time range, g) wherein the user is continuously monitored with regard to their cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state and/or the completion of the selected activity and/or the performance of the activity at the at least one selected time point or time range, and h) the selection in step e) is updated based on the monitoring data obtained in step g) to tailor the selection to the user's detected behavior
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior; wherein, based on information gathered regarding the cognitive, physiological and/or behavioral state of a user, the user is provided with instruction that prompt the user to perform a selected activity in order to improve the user’s performance, etc.
Similarly, given the claimed limitations that recite the process of: determining an indication of a predicted user performance score at a defined point in time, based on the user’s cognitive, physiological and/or behavioral sate; comparing the user’s predicted performance score to a desired performance score; determining if the user’s predicted performance score is failing short of a desired user performance score, etc., the claims also overlap with the group mental processes; such as, an evaluation, an observation, and/or a judgment process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein computer system that implements computer components (a processor, a memory, etc.), including at least one sensor is utilized to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: collecting cognitive, physiological and/or behavioral data regarding a user (“a) acquiring data relating to a cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state of the at least one user via at least one sensor . . .”); analyzing the collected data using one or more algorithms (“b) determining based on the data acquired in step a) an indication of a predicted user performance score at the defined point in time, by calculating a numerical performance score, comparing the predicted user performance score to a desired user performance score, d) if the predicted user performance score indicates a predicted user performance falling short of a desired user performance indicated by the desired user performance score”); determining one or more results based on the analysis (“d) if the predicted user performance score indicates a predicted user performance falling short of a desired user performance indicated by the desired user performance score, e) selecting at least one activity and/ or at least one time point or time range for performing an activity for adjusting the predicted user performance score to the desired user performance score or a tolerance range surrounding the desired user performance score”); generating pertinent information to the user based on the results obtained above (“f) outputting at least one prompt to the user prompting the user to perform the at least one selected activity and/or to perform an activity at the at least selected one time point or time range”); monitoring the user by gathering further data (“g) the user is continuously monitored via the at least one sensor with regard to their cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state and/or the completion of the selected activity and/or the performance of the activity at the at least one selected time point or time range”); updating one or more of the results based on the monitoring (“the selection in step e) is updated based on the monitoring data obtained in step g) to tailor the selection to the user's detected behavior”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions.
Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth to note, per the original disclosure, that the claimed invention is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the original specification describes a computer system that utilizes one or more commercially available conventional computer devices (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet computer, etc.); and wherein, the computer system provides the user with one or more personalized recommendations, based on the analysis of data gathered regarding the user (e.g., data gathered via a sensor(s) and/or a manual input, etc.), in order to help the user achieve a desired goal, etc. (e.g., see [0168]; [0169], etc.).
Also see further sections from the specification (e.g., [0231] to [0241]) regarding the disclosed conventional hardware and software components.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of providing pertinent information/instruction to a user, based on collecting and analyzing data related to the user (e.g., cognitive data, physiological data, behavioral data, and/or activity data, etc.), is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2016/0086500; US 2017/0132946, etc.).
The observations above confirm that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-19). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 12/17/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while referring to the current amendment, Applicant asserts, “amended claim 1 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because it is not directed to a judicial exception. A claim is not directed to a judicial exception where it ‘integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.’ MPEP § 2106.04(d). Applicant respectfully contends that an analysis at Prong Two of Step 2A of the amended claim 1 shows that the claim as a whole successfully integrates the judicial exception. In particular, Applicant respectfully contends that the amended claim 1 at least provides an ‘improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.’ . . . claim 1 recites, ‘acquiring data relating to a cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state of the at least one user via at least one sensor . . . the sensor-based data acquisition as recited in amended claim 1 constitutes an ‘additional element’ under the subject matter eligibility framework that is distinct from the alleged abstract idea, and goes beyond merely organizing human activity and/or performing mental processes” (emphasis added).
However, despite alleging that the claims (e.g., claim 1), as currently amended, integrates the judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application, Applicant does not identify an element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that provides the alleged technological improvement (e.g., the alleged improvement in the functioning of a computer, other technology and/or technical field). Instead, while listing part of the limitations that current claim 1 is reciting, Applicant is attempting to show the alleged technological improvement while emphasizing the claimed sensor, which supposedly monitors the user’s physiological parameters automatically (e.g., “the user is continuously monitored via the at least one sensor with regard to their cognitive and/or physiological state and/or behavioral state”). However, given the fact that the sensor is recited in a high-level of generality, it does not constitute any feature(s) that renders the sensor beyond the relevant existing technology. In fact, even the original disclosure does not implement any sensor(s) that is considered to be an advance over the relevant existing technology. Instead, the original disclosure as a whole, including each of the current claims, is utilizing the existing sensor technology for its intended purpose; namely, for data gathering purpose only; and such implementation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, regardless of whether the claimed (or the disclosed) sensor is utilized to automatically—and/or manually—monitor the user’s physiological parameters continuously (or intermittently), neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Of course, such lack of technological improvement confirms that none of the current claims is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that integrates the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In addition, regarding the analysis presented under Step 2A, Applicant appears to mix-up the inquiry of prong-one with the inquiry of prong-two. In particular, while emphasizing part of the claimed additional elements (prong-two of Step 2A), Applicant is attempting to challenge the abstract idea identified per prong-one (i.e., a mental process, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity). For instance, Applicant is alleging that “the automatic monitoring of physiological parameters via sensors cannot practically be performed mentally or manually by a human, as it requires particular hardware components to detect and measure physiological states such as ‘heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation, skin conductivity, blood oxygenation, body temperature, skin temperature,’ and other parameters that are not directly observable through mental processes alone. See Present Application at para. [0046]; see also USPTO Memorandum dated August 4, 2025 . . . claim 1 at least includes additional elements that . . . provide an improvement to systems implementing such at least by improving user performance that goes beyond merely using a computer as a tool to perform alleged abstract mental processes” (emphasis added).
However, when evaluating whether a given claim is reciting a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), prong-one of Step 2A does not require one to consider any of the additional elements. Instead, while excluding the additional elements, prong-one of Step 2A requires one to identify the judicial exception that the claim is reciting; also see MPEP 2106.07(a), emphasis added).
For Step 2A Prong One, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explain why it is an abstract idea.
Accordingly, regarding the current claims—such as claim 1, none of the claimed additional elements, which includes the claimed sensor, is considered when analyzing whether the claim is reciting an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity). Instead, while excluding the additional elements, one evaluates whether the rest of the limitations is reciting an abstract idea. This is because the additional elements are considered only per prong-two of Step 2A and Step 2B, but not per prong-one of Step 2A. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the identified abstract idea (i.e., a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity), while emphasizing the hardware components required to measure physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation, etc.), is certainly not persuasive.
Note that the inaccuracy of Applicant’s logic above can also be demonstrated when considering the court’s decision regarding Electric Power Group. For instance, the claim—i.e., claim 12—that the court has considered regarding Electric Power Group recites, at least in part, the following limitations (emphasis added),
12. A method of detecting events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid . . . receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements . . . detecting and analyzing events in real-time from
the plurality of data streams . . . measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes . . .
Thus, if one applies Applicant’s theory to claim 12 above, one may be tempted to conclude that the claim above is not a mental process. In particular, one may be tempted to argue that that the process of detecting and automatically analyzing events on an electric power grid in real-time, including: (a) receiving multiple data streams that include synchronized phasor measurements that are collected in real-time; (b) detecting and analyzing limits, sensitiveness or rate of changes of at least one of frequency instability, voltages, phase angles, etc., indeed requires “particular hardware components to detect and measure” such parameters since these parameters “are not directly observable through mental processes alone” (emphasis added).
In contrast, despite the limitations above, the court has concluded that the claim is reciting an abstract idea; namely, a mental process. This is because the claim is using the existing technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying certain results.
Of course, quite similar to the case above, Applicant’s current claims (e.g., see current claim 1) are also using the existing computer technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as: collecting data related to a user (e.g., cognitive, physiological, and/or behavioral data); analyzing the collected data (e.g., determining an indication of a predicted user performance score at the defined point in time, by calculating a numerical performance score; comparing the predicted user performance score to a desired user performance score; selecting—based on the comparison above—at least one activity and/ or at least one time point or time range for performing an activity, etc.); and generating pertinent information in the form of one or more results (e.g., outputting at least one prompt to the user prompting the user to perform the at least one selected activity and/or to perform an activity at the at least selected one time point or time range); and wherein, based on continuously monitoring the user, the process above may be repeated so that the information being presented to the user is also updated, etc.
The observation above confirms that Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s finding regarding the group mental process (and/or certain methods of organizing human activity), while emphasizing the claimed additional elements (e.g., the sensor), is once again not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant is also attempting to substantiate the alleged technological improvement while referring to various sections from the specification. Applicant asserts, “as described in the instant specification, ‘at least part of the data used to create the recommendation is captured automatically e.g. based on phone usage or calendar (scheduled) events ...’ . . . para. [0203]. In particular, ‘[t]he automatic inference can include chronotype, frequent go-to-bed time, sleep duration, wake-up time, usual working hours etc.’ Id. As such, existing techniques support ‘at least one sensor to capture the user's behaviour preferably without the user having to consciously make any inputs.’ Id. at para. [0240]. The specification further notes that ‘relying on sensor data (which often provide automatic and high-resolution measurements) yields more accurate estimations than those based on, solely, guessed activities, planned activities, or manually-entered data.’ Id. at para. [0238]. Further, being ‘continuously monitored via the at least one sensor’ as recited in amended claim 1 provides additional improvements by ‘detecting additional, unexpected activities by the user’ and ‘feasibly and accurately captur[e]’ such information to ‘resolve user behaviour differing from recommended behaviour.’ Present Application at para. [0240]. Accordingly, the steps as recited in amended claim 1 at least provide an improvement to a system implementing such steps by improving the ability of such a system to accurately monitor and/or predict user performance through the use of automatic sensor-based data acquisition and monitoring in addition to or in place of manual inputs or inferred data” (emphasis added).
However, neither Applicant’s assertions nor the sections that Applicant cited from the specification demonstrates whether any of the current claims, or the disclosure as a whole, is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, while listing the components utilized per the disclosed (and the claimed) method/system, Applicant is describing: (i) the functions that the system is performing (e.g., creating or displaying a recommendation to the user based on automatically captured data, etc.), (ii) the alleged benefits that system is providing to the user (e.g., the sensor capturing the user’s behavior without the user having to continuously make inputs; the benefit of the sensor to provide automatic and high-resolution measurement, etc.), etc. However, the inquiry per prong-two of Step 2A is not questioning whether the claimed/disclosed sensor (or any of the claimed/disclosed components for that matter) is capable of performing the claimed (or the disclosed) functions. Of course, prong-two is also not questioning the alleged benefits that the sensor, and/or the claimed/disclosed method/system, is supposedly providing to the user. Instead, the inquiry per prong-two of Step 2A is pointing out the lack of technological improvement per the claimed (and disclosed) method/system. In particular, neither the current claims nor the original discloser demonstrates any feature—or a combination of features—that is arguably an advance over the relevant existing computer/network technology (e.g., no advanced sensor, etc.). Of course, such lack of technological improvement once again confirms that none of the claims, when considered as a whole, implements an element—or a combination of elements—that integrates the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
Applicant also appears to be attempting to show the alleged technological improvement while comparing the use of a sensor with a manual process (e.g., the use of a sensor that provides automatic and high-resolution measurements is considered to be more accurate than those rely on guessed activities, planned activities, or manually-entered data; the use of automatic sensor-based data acquisition and monitoring, in addition to or in place of manual inputs or inferred data, provides the capability ability to accurately monitor and/or predict user performance, etc.). However, a technological improvement (if any) is shown by pointing out a feature (if any)—or a combination of feature (if any)—that is an advance over the relevant existing technology, as opposed to comparing the claimed (or the disclosed) sensor with a manual process. It is important to note that neither the current claims nor the original disclosure describes any advanced sensor (or any advanced computer/network feature). Instead, each of the current claims, including the original disclosure, is utilizing the existing computer/network technology (e.g., a smartphone that implements a sensor to automatically collect data related to the user, etc., see [0168] of the specification)—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea (e.g., see the abstract idea identified per prong-one of Step 2A). Consequently, regardless of the number of—and/or the type of—automatic processes that Applicant is alleging, neither Applicant’s arguments nor the specification as a whole negates the fact above.
Applicant further asserts, “steps (f) and (g) of amended claim 1 recite ‘outputting at least one prompt to the user prompting the user . . . By making recommendations relevant to the user's actual behavior based on continuous sensor monitoring in place of or in addition to manual input, the techniques as recited in amended claim 1 preserve computing resources by avoiding unnecessary prompts, thereby also providing improvements in the functioning of a computer. For example, rather than either (i) relying on expected incomplete and/or inaccurate data or (ii) generating repeated prompts to attempt to prompt the user to enter updated information, the instant system relies on continuously gathered data via one or more sensors and generating a limited number of recommendations or prompts based on the gathered information” (emphasis added).
However, Applicant is attempting to paint the features of the existing computer/network technology as a technological improvement. Note that it is part of the existing computer/network technology to provide, based on data automatically gathered regarding the user and/or the user’s environment, pertinent information to the user even without a human intervention (e.g., without a manual input from the user). Although a reference is not necessarily required to demonstrate the fact above, at least one of the references presented as part of the Step 2B analysis, confirms the fact above. For instance, Kaleal (US 2016/0086500), a publication available to the public almost for a decade prior to Applicant’s claimed (disclosed) method/system, is describing a computer-based system that includes a computing device ([0067]), which a user utilizes to accomplish one or more objectives, including one or more health objectives (e.g., a fitness program, dietary program, etc.); and wherein the device is already configured to automatically track or monitor data related to the user, including the user’s physical and physiological data, etc. (see [0071]). In particular, once the system has collected relevant information regarding the user, prior to the user starting a desired program, the system does not necessarily require continuous manual input from the user. Instead, it utilizes one or more sensors (e.g., one or more sensors attached to the user, etc.) to automatically capture—in real-time—data related to the user; such as, physical and physiological data, etc. ([0077]); and furthermore, the system analyzes, using one or more rules and/or algorithms, the collected data and generates one or more pertinent results and/or recommendations that are useful to the user; such as: (i) actions/activities the user should and shouldn't perform; (ii) how the user should and shouldn't move during performance of the actions or activities; (iii) how the user's physiology should and shouldn't function during performance of the actions or activities, etc. ([0083]).
The observation above confirms that Applicant is indeed emphasizing the features of the existing computer/network technology. In particular, due to the lack of technological improvement per Applicant’s currently claimed (and originally disclosed) method/system, Applicant appears to be importing the existing technology in further attempt to support the alleged technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion, “Applicant respectfully contends that ‘the [claimed] invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes’ where ‘a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.’ MPEP § 2106.05(a)”, is certainly not persuasive. In particular, besides the lack of technological improvement per the claimed—and disclosed—method/system, the generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements confirms that none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Thus, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that the current claims fail to comply with the subject matter eligibility per section §101.
Prior Art
4. Considering each of claims 1 and 21 as a whole (including the dependent claims that directly/indirectly depend on claim 1), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 06/18/2025).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715