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.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, and, claims 14-17 are directed towards a machine; 18-20 are directed to a manufacture, thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, representative of the claimed invention, recites the steps of determining, by a processor, an estimation of two or more readiness components based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals, wherein the two or more readiness components include: a physical energy of the user associated with physical energy consumption of the user, physical energy recovery of the user, or both; and a mental energy of the user associated with mental energy consumption of the user, mental energy recovery of the user, or both; and determining, by the processor, the readiness score based on the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components.
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and also certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The claimed steps also are directed towards managing personal behavior (e.g., diagnosing a patient)
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in collecting sensor data and calculating a readiness score.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these activities describe concepts relating to managing personal behavior and mental processes in that the activities relate to collecting and performing analysis of data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, commercial interactions, or fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps also are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a wearable device and a processor. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a wearable device, processor and memory. Claim 18 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer storage medium, one or more instructions, a wearable device, and a processor. The processor and wearable device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, performing calculations, and providing/transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps of “determining, by a processor, an estimation of two or more readiness components based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals, wherein the two or more readiness components include: a physical energy of the user associated with physical energy consumption of the user, physical energy recovery of the user, or both; and a mental energy of the user associated with mental energy consumption of the user, mental energy recovery of the user, or both; and determining, by the processor, the readiness score based on the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components.” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 14, and 18 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as collecting and analyzing user behavior to identify deficiencies and recommendations to correct or remedy said deficiencies predate the use of computers or machine learning models.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 18 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 18 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 1 14, and 18 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis.
Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0110547 to Kinnunen et al.
As to claim 1, 14, and 18, Kinnunen discloses a method of dynamically determining a readiness score of a user using a wearable device, comprising:
detecting, by the wearable device when worn by the user, one or more sensor or physiological signals associated with the user (Kinnunen [0014] “Some wearable devices may be configured to collect physiological data from users, including heart rate, motion data, temperature data, photoplethysmogram (PPG) data, and the like.” ;
determining, by a processor, an estimation of two or more readiness components based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals, wherein the two or more readiness components include (Kinnunen [0105] see “By way of another example, a user's overall Readiness Score may be calculated based on a set of contributors, including: sleep, sleep balance, heart rate, HRV balance, recovery index, temperature, activity, activity balance, or any combination thereof.”)
a physical energy of the user associated with physical energy consumption of the user, physical energy recovery of the user, or both (Kinnunen [0105] see “By way of another example, a user's overall Readiness Score may be calculated based on a set of contributors, including: sleep, sleep balance, heart rate, HRV balance, recovery index, temperature, activity, activity balance, or any combination thereof.”) ; and
a mental energy of the user associated with mental energy consumption of the user, mental energy recovery of the user, or both (Kinnunen [0105] see “By way of another example, a user's overall Readiness Score may be calculated based on a set of contributors, including: sleep, sleep balance, heart rate, HRV balance, recovery index, temperature, activity, activity balance, or any combination thereof.”) ; and
determining, by the processor, the readiness score based on the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components(Kinnunen [0105] see “By way of another example, a user's overall Readiness Score may be calculated based on a set of contributors, including: sleep, sleep balance, heart rate, HRV balance, recovery index, temperature, activity, activity balance, or any combination thereof.”)
As to claim 2, 4, 15, 16, and 20, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein the physical energy of the user is determined based on a physical energy reserve of the user, one or more heart-related metrics associated with the user, and accelerometer measurements obtained by the wearable device, and wherein the one or more heart-related metrics are associated with a heart capacity of the user to return to a normal heart rate of the user (Kinnunen [0103]-[0106] and [0043] where movement data is acquired through accelerometer measurements).
wherein the mental energy of the user is determined based at least on a workload on a mental energy level of the user obtained from the one or more sensor or physiological signals and a mental energy reserve of the user (Kinnunen [0103]-[0106]).
As to claim 3, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein determining the physical energy of the user based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals, comprises:
determining whether the user is in a state of physical energy depletion or physical recovery based on at least one of a heart rate obtained from a pulse signal or an activity level obtained from a motion signal (Kinnunen [0109]-[0110]).
As to claim 5 and 17, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein determining the mental energy of the user based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals comprises:
determining whether the user is in a state of sleeping or awake based on the one or more sensor or physiological signals (Kinnunen [0103]-[0106]) .
As to claim 6, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein determining the mental energy of the user includes determining whether the user is in a state of mental energy depletion or a state of mental energy repletion based at least in part on a stress level associated with a severity of stress obtained from the one or more sensor or physiological signals (Kinnunen [0160] physiological data collected via a wearable device may indicate an onset of a specific acute stressful situation, such as an illness).
As to claim 8, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein the two or more readiness components further include at least one of heart health (Kinnunen [0103]-[0106]) .
As to claim 9, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components is determined based on historical sensor or physiological data such that the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components is individualized for the user, and wherein the historical sensor or physiological data is tracked based one or more timescales, the one or more timescales including at least one of a daily timescale, a weekly timescale (Kinnunen [0023], [0049], [0105]-[0106])
As to claim 10, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein the readiness score is calculated based on the estimations of the two or more readiness components as well as weights of the two or more readiness components, and wherein the weights of the two of more readiness components are determined based on the estimations for the two or more readiness components (Kinnunen [0138]).
As to claim 11, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method further comprising:
prompting the user to input a subjective readiness score (Kinnunen [0142]-[0143]); and
adjusting, by the processor, the readiness score based on the subjective readiness score, the estimation of one or more of the readiness components based on the subjective component estimation, or both (Kinnunen [0142]-[0143]).
As to claim 12, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Kinnunen discloses the method wherein the readiness score is determined for a current day based on the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components determined on a previous day, and wherein the readiness score is updated in real-time based on continuous monitoring of the one or more sensor or physiological signals associated with the user (Kinnunen [0168] and figure 7).
As to claims 7, 13 and 19, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, LeBoeuf discloses the method further comprising:
provide the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components and the
readiness score to the user (Kinnunen [0168] and figure 7); and
providing guidance to the user based on the readiness score, wherein the guidance
includes at least one of information associated with the readiness score, information associated
with the estimation for each of the two or more readiness components, instructions on how to
address an underlying situation associated with the readiness score, and recommended activities (Kinnunen [0168] and figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 10,842,387 to LeBoeuf et al.
U.S. Patent 9,168,001 to Stivoric
U.S. Patent 12,343,125 to Rantanen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights