DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04 October 2024.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606).
Priority
While acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 27 April 2022, it is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/JP2022/019023 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Examiner also points out that 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(2) specifies for a 371 National Stage Application the requirement of “a translation into the English language of the international application, if it was filed in another language”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 7 recites the following:
“a personality inference device….. acquires ….”
“a stress information generation device….. acquires ….”
“an action inference device ….. acquires ….”
“transmitted […] the personality inference device”
“transmitted […] stress information generation device”
“transmitted […] the action inference device”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
The following claim limitations –
Of claim 7:
“a personality inference device….. acquires ….”
“a stress information generation device….. acquires ….”
“an action inference device ….. acquires ….”
“transmitted […] the personality inference device”
“transmitted […] stress information generation device”
“transmitted […] the action inference device”
recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 8) and machine (claims 1-7 and 9).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information, personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user, and action information indicating an action of a second user; and
identification controlling circuitry to judge whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information and identify the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information.
Claim 7 recites steps of
a personality inference device that acquires information regarding personality of a first user, infers the personality of the first user based on the information, and transmits personality information indicating the personality of the first user;
a stress information generation device that acquires information for generating information regarding stress on the first user, generates stress information based on the information, and transmits the stress information;
an action inference device that acquires information for inferring an action of a second user, infers the action of the second user based on the information, and transmits action information indicating the action of the second user; and
an information processing device,
wherein the information processing device includes:
acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information, the personality information transmitted by the personality inference device, the stress information transmitted by the stress information generation device, and the action information transmitted by the action inference device; and
identification controlling circuitry to judge whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information and identify the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information.
Claims 8 & 9 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a processor and a memory.
These steps for managing stress data for a stress log data table, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by organizing the activity around stress management using stress log data table. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 7-9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of identification controlling circuitry; an information processing device; by the personality inference device; by the stress information generation device; by the action inference device; a processor to execute a program; and, a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of acquiring circuitry to acquire; a personality inference device that acquires; transmits personality information indicating the personality of the first user; a stress information generation device that acquires; transmits the stress information; an action inference device that acquires; and, transmits action information indicating the action of the second user amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the acquiring and transmitting performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional element(s) therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of identification controlling circuitry; an information processing device; by the personality inference device; by the stress information generation device; by the action inference device; a processor to execute a program; and, a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes; e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of acquiring circuitry to acquire; a personality inference device that acquires; transmits personality information indicating the personality of the first user; a stress information generation device that acquires; transmits the stress information; an action inference device that acquires; and, transmits action information indicating the action of the second user, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-6 particular aspects for detecting abnormality such as
[Claim 2] wherein the identification controlling circuitry transmits information indicating the identified stressor action;
[Claim 3] addition controlling circuitry to judge whether the relationship has been detected greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value or not if the relationship has not been registered in the stressor action identification information and add the relationship to the stressor action identification information if the relationship has been detected greater than or equal to the threshold value;
[Claim 4] wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument to be proposed when a stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value, and
the controlling circuitry judges whether the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value or not by using the instrument proposal information, and if the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to the threshold value, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument;
[Claim 5] wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument corresponding to a stressor action, and
the identification controlling circuitry judges whether an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action should be proposed or not based on the stress information, and if the proposal should be made, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument;
[Claim 6] wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires a first stress value as a degree of stress on the first user at a first time point, first action information as action information regarding the second user that is related with the first stress value, a second stress value as the degree of stress on the first user at a second time point as a time point after the first time point, second action information as action information regarding the second user that is related with the second stress value, and instrument information indicating an instrument corresponding to a third time point as a time point between the first time point and the second time point, and
when the first action information and the second action information are a same as each other, the addition controlling circuitry judges whether or not the second stress value is less than the first stress value, and if the second stress value is less than the first stress value, the addition controlling circuitry adds a relationship between the first action information or the second action information and the instrument corresponding to the third time point to the instrument proposal information;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity but for recitation of generic computer components since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans).
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-6 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 3 (addition controlling circuitry); claim 4 (the acquiring circuitry; and, the controlling circuitry); claim 5 (the identification controlling circuitry); and, claim 6 (the addition controlling circuitry) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 2 (wherein the identification controlling circuitry transmits information indicating the identified stressor action); claim 4 (and transmits information indicating the identified instrument); claim 5 (acquiring circuitry acquires; and, transmits information indicating the identified instrument); and, claim 6 (the acquiring circuitry acquires) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the acquiring and transmitting performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 3-6 recites additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace
business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose
computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0046]-[0047] & [0053] which provides examples of generic processors, [0048] & [0054] which provides examples of memory devices, and [0042] disclosing examples of computing devices. Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is not patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanaka (JP2022001115A) in view of Premsukh (US20170251967A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yanaka discloses and action information indicating an action of a second user ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 has a heartbeat indicating the magnitude of stress received by a subject who is performing work”)
and identification controlling circuitry to judge whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information ([pg. 2] “Based on the correspondence management table 800 described later in FIG. 8, the information processing apparatus 100 provides conversion information that enables conversion of the heartbeat stress value into a subjective stress value and a subjective stress value for each business that is not registered in the business list.”)
and identify the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information ([pg. 2-3] “FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the stored contents of the subjective stress value management table 700. As shown in FIG. 7, the subjective stress value management table 700 has fields for a business name and a subjective stress value. […] In the field of subjective stress value, a subjective stress value indicating the magnitude of stress received by the subject regarding the work”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information ([0039] “In one embodiment, the home health hub may be programmed to identify/assign timestamps for received user data, and arrange and organize data from several user-interfacing devices according to a timeline. Such a timeline may be the basis for identifying anomalous events or periods of stressful activity.”)
personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user ([0039] “For example, a stressful event may be identified based on increased cortisol readings from mini-biolab 404, reduced heart rate variabilities (HRV) readings from wearable patch device 405, and reported feelings of anxiety or depression from a survey questionnaire in psychometric diagnostic 406.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information; and, personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Yanaka discloses and identify the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information ([pg. 2-3] “FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the stored contents of the subjective stress value management table 700. As shown in FIG. 7, the subjective stress value management table 700 has fields for a business name and a subjective stress value. […] In the field of subjective stress value, a subjective stress value indicating the magnitude of stress received by the subject regarding the work”)
Regarding claim 3, Yanaka discloses and add the relationship to the stressor action identification information if the relationship has been detected greater than or equal to the threshold value ([pg. 15] “The storage unit 1400 stores a threshold value for a second type stress value regarding the work content. The storage unit 1400 stores, for example, a threshold value for the subjective stress value regarding the work content. Specifically, the storage unit 1400 stores the threshold value management table 1100 in FIG. 11.”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches addition controlling circuitry to judge whether the relationship has been detected greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value or not if the relationship has not been registered in the stressor action identification information ([0083] “assess the stress of an individual, for example by comparing the value to a predetermined threshold level of psychological stress deemed too high, for example a PSS level of 30.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka addition controlling circuitry to judge whether the relationship has been detected greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value or not if the relationship has not been registered in the stressor action identification information as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument corresponding to a stressor action ([0006] “a set of user-interfacing devices for collecting user data” [0061] “an Occupational Stress Scale may be used to assess workplace stressors such as workload, position demands, policy strictness, time pressures, interpersonal/priority conflicts or uncertain, etc.” [0066] “if the user is identified as regularly experiencing a spike in heart rate (as measured with the physiological apparatus) above 100 bpm at the same time of day, the system may identify that some activity or environment may be producing stress for the user at that time of day.”)
and the identification controlling circuitry judges whether an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action should be proposed or not based on the stress information ([0066] “The system may consider concurrent measurements of movement from an accelerometer or inertial measurement unit (or location from a GPS sensor) (via the physiological apparatus) to rule out the possibility that the spiked heart rate is due to the user is engaging in exercise.”)
and if the proposal should be made, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument ([0083] “by comparing the value to a predetermined threshold level of psychological stress deemed too high” [0067] “Based on identifying the recurring stressful event, such as, but not limited to, business meetings with individuals that are adversarial or a driving commute rifled with traffic, the system may recommend an intervention to reduce stress caused by that event. The intervention may be simply notifying the user that they are about to enter a stressful situation”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument corresponding to a stressor action, and the identification controlling circuitry judges whether an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action should be proposed or not based on the stress information, and if the proposal should be made, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Yanaka discloses a stress information generation device that acquires information for generating information regarding stress on the first user, generates stress information based on the information ([pg. 15] “accept a signal transmitted by the timer at regular time intervals as a start trigger for the generation unit” [pg. 16] “The generation unit 1402 generates conversion information regarding the work content and a threshold value for the stress value of the second type based on the acquired stress value”)
an action inference device that acquires information for inferring an action of a second user, infers the action of the second user based on the information, and transmits action information indicating the action of the second user ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 has a heartbeat indicating the magnitude of stress received by a subject who is performing work […] transmits it to the information processing device 100.”)
and action information indicating an action of a second user ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 has a heartbeat indicating the magnitude of stress received by a subject who is performing work”)
and identification controlling circuitry to judge whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information ([pg. 2] “Based on the correspondence management table 800 described later in FIG. 8, the information processing apparatus 100 provides conversion information that enables conversion of the heartbeat stress value into a subjective stress value and a subjective stress value for each business that is not registered in the business list.”)
and identify the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information ([pg. 2-3] “FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the stored contents of the subjective stress value management table 700. As shown in FIG. 7, the subjective stress value management table 700 has fields for a business name and a subjective stress value. […] In the field of subjective stress value, a subjective stress value indicating the magnitude of stress received by the subject regarding the work”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches a personality inference device that acquires information regarding personality of a first user, infers the personality of the first user based on the information, and transmits personality information indicating the personality of the first user ([0039] “In this embodiment, a hub, seen as home health hub 407, acts as a relay station between […] the psychological data apparatus (psychometric diagnostic 406) to the network 402” [0060] “The psychometric diagnostic 406 may be used to identify psychological state information that in turn may be formulated as psychological data as described above. […] User responses to surveys are either presented on a computing device or handwritten responses that in turn are entered into a database are quantified and transmitted for further analysis”)
and transmits the stress information ([0031] “transmits the data to client computer 401 for processing”)
and an information processing device ([0006] “In one aspect, there is provided a system for individualized stress management including a processing unit”)
wherein the information processing device includes: acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information ([0039] “In one embodiment, the home health hub may be programmed to identify/assign timestamps for received user data, and arrange and organize data from several user-interfacing devices according to a timeline. Such a timeline may be the basis for identifying anomalous events or periods of stressful activity.”)
personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user ([0039] “For example, a stressful event may be identified based on increased cortisol readings from mini-biolab 404, reduced heart rate variabilities (HRV) readings from wearable patch device 405, and reported feelings of anxiety or depression from a survey questionnaire in psychometric diagnostic 406.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka a personality inference device that acquires information regarding personality of a first user, infers the personality of the first user based on the information, and transmits personality information indicating the personality of the first user; transmits the stress information; an information processing device; acquiring circuitry to acquire stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information; and, personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Yanaka discloses and action information indicating an action of a second user ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 has a heartbeat indicating the magnitude of stress received by a subject who is performing work”)
judging whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information ([pg. 2] “Based on the correspondence management table 800 described later in FIG. 8, the information processing apparatus 100 provides conversion information that enables conversion of the heartbeat stress value into a subjective stress value and a subjective stress value for each business that is not registered in the business list.”)
and identifying the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information ([pg. 2-3] “FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the stored contents of the subjective stress value management table 700. As shown in FIG. 7, the subjective stress value management table 700 has fields for a business name and a subjective stress value. […] In the field of subjective stress value, a subjective stress value indicating the magnitude of stress received by the subject regarding the work”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches acquiring stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information ([0039] “In one embodiment, the home health hub may be programmed to identify/assign timestamps for received user data, and arrange and organize data from several user-interfacing devices according to a timeline. Such a timeline may be the basis for identifying anomalous events or periods of stressful activity.”)
personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user ([0039] “For example, a stressful event may be identified based on increased cortisol readings from mini-biolab 404, reduced heart rate variabilities (HRV) readings from wearable patch device 405, and reported feelings of anxiety or depression from a survey questionnaire in psychometric diagnostic 406.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka acquiring stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information; and, personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Yanaka discloses and action information indicating an action of a second user ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 has a heartbeat indicating the magnitude of stress received by a subject who is performing work”)
judging whether a relationship between the personality information and the action information has been registered in the stressor action identification information or not based on the stress information ([pg. 2] “Based on the correspondence management table 800 described later in FIG. 8, the information processing apparatus 100 provides conversion information that enables conversion of the heartbeat stress value into a subjective stress value and a subjective stress value for each business that is not registered in the business list.”)
and identifying the action information as a stressor action if the relationship has been registered in the stressor action identification information ([pg. 2-3] “FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the stored contents of the subjective stress value management table 700. As shown in FIG. 7, the subjective stress value management table 700 has fields for a business name and a subjective stress value. […] In the field of subjective stress value, a subjective stress value indicating the magnitude of stress received by the subject regarding the work”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches a processor to execute a program ([0432] “The system 420 also includes a processor 432”)
and a memory to store the program which ([0089] “Aspects of teachings provided such as the logical flows may include signals that may be read and/or stored on various types of media including hardware or non-transitory computer-readable media, such as a floppy disk drive, Compact Disc (CD), Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive, computer memory devices (read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), flash, etc.)”)
when executed by the processor, performs processes of ([0037] “The processor 432 is configured to execute instructions from the other modules of the system 420”)
acquiring stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information ([0039] “In one embodiment, the home health hub may be programmed to identify/assign timestamps for received user data, and arrange and organize data from several user-interfacing devices according to a timeline. Such a timeline may be the basis for identifying anomalous events or periods of stressful activity.”)
personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user ([0039] “For example, a stressful event may be identified based on increased cortisol readings from mini-biolab 404, reduced heart rate variabilities (HRV) readings from wearable patch device 405, and reported feelings of anxiety or depression from a survey questionnaire in psychometric diagnostic 406.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka a processor to execute a program; and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of; acquiring stressor action identification information indicating a correspondence relationship between personality information and action information; and, personality information indicating personality of a first user, stress information as information regarding stress on the first user as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanaka (JP2022001115A) in view of Premsukh (US20170251967A1) and further in view of Kuryshev et al. (WO2017160186A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yanaka in view of Premsukh does not explicitly disclose however Kuryshev teaches wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument to be proposed when a stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value ([pg. 11] “Preferably, from the databases of applications installed on the user's electronic device, information is collected” [pg. 18] “Signals are recorded along each axis and averaged over a certain time interval. […] By the distribution of the obtained data over time, conclusions can be drawn about the daily motor activity and human lifestyle.” [pg. 20] “The display on the display of the mobile computing device of information about the output of the level of the stress state beyond the set threshold”)
and the controlling circuitry judges whether the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value or not by using the instrument proposal information, and if the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to the threshold value, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument ([pg. 16-17] “events automatically generated by the biometric detector in accordance with the set threshold values that help the user control the growth of stress. Each of these events can be subsequently flagged by the user from the list of events. All events activate the issuance of push messages on the user's mobile device […] The stress level can be displayed in relation to the active or passive physical behavior of the user”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka and Premsukh the acquiring circuitry acquires instrument proposal information indicating an instrument to be proposed when a stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value; and, the controlling circuitry judges whether the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to a threshold value or not by using the instrument proposal information, and if the identified stressor action has been performed greater than or equal to the threshold value, identifies an instrument corresponding to the identified stressor action based on the instrument proposal information and transmits information indicating the identified instrument as taught by Kuryshev since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanaka (JP2022001115A) in view of Premsukh (US20170251967A1), Kuryshev et al. (WO2017160186A1), and further in view of Xu et al. (US20190328301A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yanaka discloses and instrument information indicating an instrument corresponding to a third time point as a time point between the first time point and the second time point ([pg. 18] “Wherein biometric recorder will be able to measure the effect of the proposed advice in the next time interval, for example, from 5 to 120 minutes.”)
and when the first action information and the second action information are a same as each other ([pg. 9] “The information processing apparatus 100 sets the heart rate stress value and the subjective stress value related to the same work”)
the addition controlling circuitry judges whether or not the second stress value is less than the first stress value ([pg. 7] “On the other hand, in the information processing apparatus 100, for example, if the converted second type stress value 122 is less than the threshold value 132”)
Yanaka does not explicitly disclose however Premsukh teaches addition controlling circuitry, wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires a first stress value as a degree of stress on the first user at a first time point ([0084] “The data obtained from the physiological sensors” [0063] “a baseline stress measurement may include measuring the user's sleep every night for a predetermined period of time”)
first action information as action information regarding the second user that is related with the first stress value ([0057] “Furthermore, the sensor 606 may be a proximity sensor to measure referential positioning so that social interactions with others or proximities to objects that may impact user-physiology, biology or psychology can be assessed.” [0067] “interacting with one or more individuals is identified as resulting in stress”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Yanaka addition controlling circuitry, wherein the acquiring circuitry acquires a first stress value as a degree of stress on the first user at a first time point, first action information as action information regarding the second user that is related with the first stress value as taught by Premsukh since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art.
Yanaka in view of Premsukh does not explicitly disclose however Kuryshev teaches a second stress value as the degree of stress on the first user at a second time point as a time point after the first time point ([pg. 16-17] “The stress level and activity for a period of time from 5 minutes to a day and for a week. The stress level can be displayed in relation to the active or passive physical behavior of the user”)
second action informati