DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 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 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 1-20 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 monitoring emotions of a user using a wearable device, comprising:
detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user;
determining, by a processor in a first layer of the method, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected;
responsive to determining the one or more detected emotions,
determining, by the processor in a second layer of the method, one or more symptoms of the user, wherein the one or more symptoms are based on the one or more detected emotions; and
responsive to determining the one or more symptoms, determining, by the processor in a third layer of the method, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user, wherein the one or more mental wellbeing metrics are based on the one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms.
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.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 11 & 17 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, & 17-20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2 & 12 recites prompting a user to confirm emotions and creating a log; Claims 3 & 13 recite modifying detection parameters; Claim 4 recites prompting for additional user input; Claim 5 recites confirming symptom and metric data; Claims 6, 14, & 18 recite providing a mental health plan; Claim 7 recites cumulatively tracking emotion and symptom data over time; Claims 8, 16, & 19 recites receiving baseline data; Claims 9, 15, & 20 recites categorizing emotion 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 claim 1 and analogous independent claims 11 & 17, 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 monitoring emotions of a user using a wearable device, comprising:
detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user;
determining, by a processor in a first layer of the method, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected;
responsive to determining the one or more detected emotions,
determining, by the processor in a second layer of the method, one or more symptoms of the user, wherein the one or more symptoms are based on the one or more detected emotions; and
responsive to determining the one or more symptoms, determining, by the processor in a third layer of the method, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user, wherein the one or more mental wellbeing metrics are based on the one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms.
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 and layers; 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, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 11 & 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 claim 1 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 and layers; 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.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, & 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehsani (US20240008784) in view of Osborn (US20140065585)
As per claim 1, Ehsani teaches a method of dynamically monitoring emotions of a user using a wearable device, comprising:
detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more physiological signals associated with a user (para. 8: wearable device with sensors generates physiological data);
determining, by a processor in a first layer of the method, one or more detected emotions associated with the one or more physiological signals detected (para. 22: device determines emotional data based on physiological data captured by sensors);
responsive to determining the one or more detected emotions, determining, by the processor in a second layer of the method, one or more symptoms of the user, wherein the one or more symptoms are based on the one or more detected emotions (para. 22: emotional condition associated with symptom).
responsive to determining the one or more symptoms, determining, by the processor in a third layer of the method, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user (para. 67: efficacy of intervention determined for specific user),
Ehsani does not expressly teach responsive to determining the one or more symptoms, determining, by the processor in a third layer of the method, one or more mental wellbeing metrics associated with a mental wellbeing of the user, wherein the one or more mental wellbeing metrics are based on the one or more detected emotions and the one or more symptoms.
Osborn, however, teaches to collecting and determining emotional and symptom data and using the data to determine a diagnosis for the user (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Osborn with Ehsani based on the motivation of helping the user with a variety of emotional and/or mental problems the user may have so that the user can better understand, manage, and/or treat such problems (Osborn – para. 1).
As per claim 5, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1. Ehsani teaches further comprising:
responsive to determining the one or more symptoms, prompting the user to confirm or reject the one or more symptoms (para. 18: user prompted to confirm symptom).
Ehsani does not expressly teach responsive to determining the one or more mental wellbeing metrics, prompting the user to confirm or reject the one or more wellbeing metrics.
Osborn, however, teaches to where a user can provide input to refine the diagnosis generated by the system (para. 47, 55, 103).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1. Ehsani teaches further comprising:
providing a mental health plan to the user based upon at least one of the one or more detected emotions, the one or more symptoms, and the one or more mental wellbeing metrics, wherein the mental health plan includes at least one of recommendations, activities, actions, and mental health information (para. 72: intervention provided to user included recommended actions to help user treat their condition; intervention is based on patient data including symptoms, emotions, and diagnosis).
As per claim 7, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1. Ehsani teaches wherein the method further comprises:
cumulatively tracking, by the processor in the first layer, the one or more detected emotions within a first time interval to obtain a first emotion summary and within a second time interval to obtain a second emotion summary, wherein the one or more symptoms are determined based on the first emotion summary and the second emotion summary such that the one or more symptoms are based upon a third time interval that combines the first time interval and the second time interval (Fig. 1 & 2; para. 40, 42-43: sensors collect data over specific time intervals; data is combined and analyzed to identify irregularities such as symptoms).
As per claim 8, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1. Ehsani teaches wherein prior to detecting the one or more physiological signals associated with the user, the method further comprises:
receiving, from the user as an input, an emotional baseline that includes one or more expected emotions or a response to a wellbeing question to assess a validity of the one or more detected emotions (para. 40: baseline determined via questioning of user).
As per claim 10, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1. Ehsani teaches further comprising:
determining, by the processor, at least one of an intensity of the one or more detected emotions and an intensity of the one or more symptoms (para. 72: stress level determined by system).
Claims 11 & 17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 14, Ehsani and Osborn teach the wearable device of claim 11. Ehsani teaches wherein a log is created to cumulatively track the one or more detected emotions on a momentary basis, an event-related basis, a daily basis, a weekly basis, and a monthly basis (para. 63: devices store history of user including data relating to previous symptom, a previous intervention, an efficacy of a previous intervention, or a combination; the Examiner asserts that the specific monitoring intervals are considered mere duplication and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced); and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions stored in the non-transitory memory to: provide a mental health plan to the user based upon at least one of the one or more detected emotions, the one or more symptoms, and the one or more mental wellbeing metrics, wherein the mental health plan includes at least one of recommendations, activities, actions, and mental health information (para. 72: intervention provided to user included recommended actions to help user treat their condition; intervention is based on patient data including symptoms, emotions, and diagnosis).
As per claim 15, Ehsani and Osborn teach the wearable device of claim 14. Ehsani teaches wherein the one or more detected emotions include one or more emotion categories represented by fear, sadness, happiness, and excitement (para. 47: stress, anxiety, depression detected).
Claims 16 & 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 8, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 2-4, 9, 12-13, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehsani (US20240008784) in view of Osborn (US20140065585) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Le (EP4570178A1)
As per claim 2, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1 further comprising: responsive to determining the one or more detected emotions, prompting the user (Ehsani - Fig. 9; para. 45, 71: system learns to detect and anticipate events based on sensor data and provides an interface to interact with user), wherein the one or more detected emotions are cumulatively tracked to create a log when the user confirms the one or more detected emotions (Ehsani - para. 63: devices store history of user including data relating to previous symptom, a previous intervention, an efficacy of a previous intervention, or a combination).
Ehsani and Osborn do not expressly teach prompting the user to confirm or reject the one or more detected emotions.
Le, however, teaches to determining emotional states based on physiological data where a user is prompted to review detected emotional state (para. 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Le with Ehsani and Osborn based on the motivation of provide effective and accurate labelling of captured physiological signals (Le – para. 4).
As per claim 3, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 2, but do not expressly teach to further comprising: responsive to the user rejecting the one or more detected emotions, modifying one or more parameters used by the processor to determine the one or more detected emotions.
Le, however, teaches to determining emotional states based on physiological data where a user rejects a detected emotional state and the system adjusts the baseline values for the specific emotional state (para. 52-53).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 2, but do not expressly teach wherein if the user rejects the one or more detected emotions, the user is prompted to input one or more input emotions, wherein the one or more input emotions are different than the one or more detected emotions.
Le, however, teaches to determining emotional states based on physiological data where a user rejects a detected emotional state and the user can input a new emotional label (para. 49).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Ehsani and Osborn teach the method of claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the one or more detected emotions are categorized based upon an associated arousal signal and an associated valence signal that are derived from the one or more physiological signals, and wherein a combination of the associated arousal signal and the associated valence signal is unique for each of the one or more detected emotions
Le, however, teaches to determining emotions based on intensity and similarity associated with a physiological signal where the specific values are correlated with a specific emotion (para. 41-42).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and incorporated herein.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 2, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 3, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 9, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
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.
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