DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 & 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/5/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 & 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-10 & 21-22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 11-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claims 17 & 20 are directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-17 & 20-22 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
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. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method of dynamically determining emotions of a user from physiological signals using a wearable device, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user;
determining, by the processor, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected during each of a plurality of first time intervals, wherein each of the one or more detected emotions is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion;
responsive to accumulating at least some of the one or more detected emotions over the plurality of first time intervals, one or more symptoms of the user over a second time interval based on the one or more detected emotions accumulated over the plurality of first time intervals, wherein the plurality of first time intervals occur within the second time interval; and
responsive to accumulating the one or more symptoms over a plurality of second time intervals, determining, by the processor, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user over a third time interval based on the accumulated one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms determined over the plurality of second time intervals, wherein the plurality of second time intervals occur within the third time interval.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because determining emotions and symptoms and determining mental wellbeing metrics based on the emotions and symptoms, are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 21 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 21 recites:
21. (New) A method of dynamically determining emotions of a user from physiological signals using a wearable device, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user;
determining, by the processor, a detected emotion associated with the one or more physiological signals, wherein the detected emotion is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion;
providing, by the processor, an indication of the detected emotion to the user;
receiving, by the processor, a subjective input from the user regarding the detected emotion, wherein the subjective input comprises confirmation or rejection of the detected emotion;
responsive to receiving the subjective input rejecting the detected emotion, modifying, by the processor, one or more parameters used for determining detected emotions; and
determining, by the processor, a subsequent detected emotion associated with one or more subsequent physiological signals based on the one or more modified parameters.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because determining emotions and symptoms and determining subsequent emotions based on modified parameters based on the emotions and symptoms, are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 21 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-17, 20, & 22 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2 & 12 recites prompting a user to confirm emotions; Claims 3 & 13 recite modifying detection parameters; Claim 4 recites prompting for additional user input; Claim 5 recites determining symptom data; Claims 6 & 14 recite providing a mental health plan; Claim 7 recites cumulatively tracking emotion and symptom data over time via an emotion summary; Claims 8 & 16 recites receiving baseline data; Claims 9, 15, & 20 recites categorizing emotion data using arousal and valence data; Claim 10 recites determining intensity data. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 & 21, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate 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 exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A method of dynamically determining emotions of a user from physiological signals using a wearable device, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user;
determining, by the processor, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected during each of a plurality of first time intervals, wherein each of the one or more detected emotions is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion;
responsive to accumulating at least some of the one or more detected emotions over the plurality of first time intervals, one or more symptoms of the user over a second time interval based on the one or more detected emotions accumulated over the plurality of first time intervals, wherein the plurality of first time intervals occur within the second time interval; and
responsive to accumulating the one or more symptoms over a plurality of second time intervals, determining, by the processor, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user over a third time interval based on the accumulated one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms determined over the plurality of second time intervals, wherein the plurality of second time intervals occur within the third time interval.
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 limitations of the processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user; the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) 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 is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
21. (New) A method of dynamically determining emotions of a user from physiological signals using a wearable device, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user;
determining, by the processor, a detected emotion associated with the one or more physiological signals, wherein the detected emotion is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion;
providing, by the processor, an indication of the detected emotion to the user;
receiving, by the processor, a subjective input from the user regarding the detected emotion, wherein the subjective input comprises confirmation or rejection of the detected emotion;
responsive to receiving the subjective input rejecting the detected emotion, modifying, by the processor, one or more parameters used for determining detected emotions; and
determining, by the processor, a subsequent detected emotion associated with one or more subsequent physiological signals based on the one or more modified parameters.
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 limitations of the processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user; the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) 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 is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, 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 with the abstract idea, 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 effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 1 and 21 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Dependent claims 10 and 22 recite a heart rate and motion sensor, determining the motion of the user, and turning the heart rate sensor on or off depending on the detected motion of the user. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) 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)).
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 & 21 does 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user; the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) 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 is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The dependent claims also 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 dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding dependent claims 10 & 22; the Examiner asserts that the limitations are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See references Blackadar (US20150119728) teaching to motion data may be analyzed by a system processor to determine that a subject is in an inactive state (e.g., sitting, lying, riding in a vehicle, etc.). A health monitor may then determine that at least power to a motion detector and physiological sensor may be reduced (para. 110). Arnold (US20160022175) also teaches that detected that a user is in the sleep state, embodiments may reduce power consumption by the photoplethysmographic sensor and/or the motion sensor (para. 53, 167).
Therefore, claims 1-17 & 20-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user; determining, by the processor, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected during each of a plurality of first time intervals, wherein each of the one or more detected emotions is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion; responsive to accumulating at least some of the one or more detected emotions over the plurality of first time intervals, one or more symptoms of the user over a second time interval based on the one or more detected emotions accumulated over the plurality of first time intervals, wherein the plurality of first time intervals occur within the second time interval; and responsive to accumulating the one or more symptoms over a plurality of second time intervals, determining, by the processor, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user over a third time interval based on the accumulated one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms determined over the plurality of second time intervals, wherein the plurality of second time intervals occur within the third time interval.
The prior art does not expressly teach obtaining, by a processor, one or more physiological signals associated with the user detected by one or more physiological sensors of the wearable device when worn by the user; determining, by the processor, a detected emotion associated with the one or more physiological signals, wherein the detected emotion is categorized into an emotion category based on at least one emotion characteristic associated with the detected emotion; providing, by the processor, an indication of the detected emotion to the user; receiving, by the processor, a subjective input from the user regarding the detected emotion, wherein the subjective input comprises confirmation or rejection of the detected emotion; responsive to receiving the subjective input rejecting the detected emotion, modifying, by the processor, one or more parameters used for determining detected emotions; and determining, by the processor, a subsequent detected emotion associated with one or more subsequent physiological signals based on the one or more modified parameters.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Ehsani (US20240008784) teaches to a system for management of health conditions, such as mental health conditions, using a biosensor configured to monitor one or more biological properties of an individual and providing feedback and information based on data in real-time. Lee (WO2024128478A1) teaches to an AI-based affective disorder digital diagnosis system, the system comprising: a user terminal which uploads sensor data, for at least one part of the human body, collected from a wearable device; and a monitoring service providing server including a databasing unit, which maps and stores parts activated according to at least one emotion on the basis of a body sensation map, a collection unit, which collects the sensor data from the wearable device, an extraction unit, which analyzes the sensor data and extracts at least one activated part of the human body, and a monitoring unit, which extracts emotions mapped to the at least one extracted part and stored.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection on pages 10-12 in regards to claims 1-17 & 20-22 have been considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-15 regarding claim s1-17 & 20-22 being rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The claims provide a particular processing architecture that provides a specific improvement to wearable-based physiological monitoring similar to the CardioNet case.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims are not similar to the claims in CardioNet. In CardioNet, the claims result in an improved medical device, thereby improving cardiac monitoring. The instant claims are merely processing the sensor data received from a wearable device, which is then used to generate emotion data and mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user. In CardioNet, the court determined the patent was "directed to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to an abstract idea" as "the claims 'focus on a specific means or methods that improves' cardiac monitoring technology; they are not 'directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." CardioNet, 955 at 1368. The instant application presents a non-technical problem – dynamically monitoring a tracking a mental health state of an individual by determining emotions of the user (see the instant Specification in [0031[). The solution to the problem is rooted in an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not a technical failure of a computer system. The additional elements can best be characterized as tools to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the "Other examples., v.").
Claim 10 recites specific physical operations controlling the operating state of a heart rate sensor and improves the power management of the wearable device.
The Examiner, however, asserts that these limitations are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See references Blackadar (US20150119728) teaching to motion data may be analyzed by a system processor to determine that a subject is in an inactive state (e.g., sitting, lying, riding in a vehicle, etc.). A health monitor may then determine that at least power to a motion detector and physiological sensor may be reduced (para. 110). Arnold (US20160022175) also teaches that detected that a user is in the sleep state, embodiments may reduce power consumption by the photoplethysmographic sensor and/or the motion sensor (para. 53, 167). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the claimed judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shriberg (US20190385711) teaches to systems and methods for assessing a mental state of a subject in a single session or over multiple different sessions, using for example an automated module to present and/or formulate at least one query based in part on one or more target mental states to be assessed.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights