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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on February 18, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 9, 26, 27, 71, 73, 79, 84, 97, and 98 have been amended.
Claims 143-154 have been added.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 72, 77, 81, 82, and 142 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 26, 27, 71, 73, 79, 84, 97, 98, and 143-154 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 18, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 9, 26, 27, 71, 73, 79, 84, 97, 98, and 143-154 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, 9, 26, 27, 71, 143-148 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 73, 79, 84, 97, 98, and 149-154 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1, 3, 9, 26, 27, 71, 73, 79, 84, 97, 98, and 143-154 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 3, 71, 73) recites the following steps:
A method of facilitating personal development of a user, the method comprising causing at least one processor circuit comprising at least one processor circuit of an edge device to, at least:
cause at least one measurement device worn on a body of the user to measure at least one measurement of the body of the user;
receive, from the at least one measurement device, at least one signal representing the at least one measurement of the body of the user;
infer, from the at least one measurement of the body of the user and at least one response of the user to at least one prompt, at least one personality characteristic of the user, the at least one personality characteristic comprising a personality type, a personality trait, or a personality type and a personality trait, wherein inferring the at least one personality characteristic of the user is performed locally on the edge device in a federated learning environment;
in response to at least one inference, performed locally on the edge device in the federated learning environment, of the at least one personality characteristic of the user, match the user to at least one opportunity based at least on the inferred at least one personality characteristic of the user and at least one skill of the user; and
in response to a match between the user and the at least one opportunity, the match based at least on the inferred at least one personality characteristic of the user and the at least one skill of the user, the at least one opportunity withheld from the user prior to the match, present the at least one opportunity to the user.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) using personality information obtained from a user to match opportunities to the user (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1, 3, 71 and 73 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
at least one processor circuit
an edge device to,
at least one measurement device,
at least one signal
A system for facilitating personal development of a user, the system comprising: at least one processor circuit comprising at least one processor circuit of an edge device; and at least one computer-readable storage medium comprising stored thereon program codes that, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, cause the at least one processor circuit to, at least
A system for matching a user to at least one opportunity, the system comprising: at least one processor circuit comprising at least one processor circuit of an edge device; and at least one computer-readable storage medium comprising stored thereon program codes that, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, cause the at least one processor circuit to, at least:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein inferring the at least one personality characteristic of the user is performed locally on the edge device in a federated learning environment" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein inferring the at least one personality characteristic of the user is performed locally on the edge device in a federated learning environment” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 9, 79, 143, 146, 149, 152 and 154 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 26, 27, 84, 97, 98, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151 and 153 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
one haptic measurement of the body
one biometric measurement of the body
AI generated media
Program codes
one processor circuit
artificial intelligence (Al), machine learning (ML), and/or Tiny ML locally on the edge device in the federated learning environment to reduce latency.
the edge device
one measurement device
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
Examiner conducted a thorough search of the body of available prior art (see attached documents regards PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited and PE2E Search History). Notably, Examiner discovered several patent literature documents that taught aspects of the invention, but no single disclosure taught “every element required by the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation” [MPEP § 2131] to make a 35 USC § 102 rejection. Further, Examiner considered the individual elements of the recited claims taught across the prior art cited below, but did not find it obvious to combine such disclosures [MPEP § 2142] to make a 35 USC § 103 rejection. In particular, Wilf et al., U.S. Publication No. 2015/0242707 discloses, a wearable device that detects a person of interest to perform a personality analysis but does not teach that the wearable device does a personality analysis on the actual wearer of the device. Mikhajlov, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0279668 discloses a wearable device to determine a user’s abilities and provide recommendation regarding occupations, professions and industry branches based on the skills and features of the user [0041], but is silent to dynamically generating the at least one prompt using, at least, AI-generated media, as well as, capturing haptic measurements. Both are silent to providing a learning opportunity. Lastly, Taylor U.S. Publication No. 2020/0134569 teaches a wearable device to make assessment based talent matching but was silent to other required features of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Amended independent claims 1, 3, 71, and 73 further incorporate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application which includes measuring and using physical measurements of the body of an individual.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, gathering data about a user using a device and matching the data with a personality trait and then a jo opportunity is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of gathering data about a user using a device and matching the data with a personality trait and then a jo opportunity is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Furthermore the claim recites additional elements that represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The receiving, inferring and presenting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data for use in the inferring step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The wearable measurement device that performs the measuring step is also recited at a high level of generality. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 5:30pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights