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 November 27, 2024.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-15 have been preliminarily amended, also on November 27, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 27, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites two periods as well as no conjunction between the two different limitations of Claim 10. Thus, it is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed whether both limitations are required or just one (e.g., whether the claim can end after the first limitation or not). Therefore, Claim 10 must be rejected under § 112(b).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites a “controller for determining an emotional state of a user, said controller configured to” perform the steps of the invention. It is not clear or particularly pointed out what this “controller” is. Is the controller structural? Should it be interpreted under § 112(f)? If so, what is the structure and what is the support in the specification? What statutory category is this claim for the purpose of analysis under step 1 of § 101 subject matter eligibility? These are all issues that Claim 13 fails to particularly point out or distinctly claim, and thus Claim 13 must be rejected under § 112(b).
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, there are multiple steps that may need to be assessed. First, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 1 whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in step 2A prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in step 2B whether the claim recites “significantly more” than the abstract idea. See “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” 84 Fed. Reg. (4): 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
In the instant case, Claims 1-13 are directed toward a system, i.e., apparatus (though Examiner notes the § 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 above), Claim 14 is directed toward a method, i.e., process, and Claim 15 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium, i.e., article of composition. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by step 1. Nevertheless, the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea in step 2A prong 1. Independent Claim 1, which is illustrative of the independent claims, recites as follows:
Claim 1. A system for determining an emotional state of a user, the system comprising:
a radiofrequency, RF, based sensing system comprising one or more nodes arranged for transmitting and/or receiving RF signals for RF-based sensing;
a presence detection unit configured to receive presence data, to determine, based on the received presence data a presence of the user in an environment, and to determine based on the received presence data a presence of a visitor in the environment, and differentiate based on the received data the presence of the user from the presence of the visitor;
a controller configured to:
receive a first input indicative of the presence of the user in the environment and further receive a second input indicative of the presence of the visitor in the environment;
when the user is present, set the RF-based sensing system to a first operating mode, wherein, when set to the first operating mode, the RF-based sensing system operates according to a first set of RF-sensing parameters;
when the user and the visitor are present, switch the RF-based sensing system to a second operating mode, wherein, when set to the second operating mode, the RF-based sensing system operates according to a second set of RF-sensing parameters, different from the first set of RF-sensing parameters, wherein the second set of RF-sensing parameters enable to sense one or more physical and/or physiological parameters of the user;
obtain the RF signals when the RF-based sensing system is set to the second operating mode;
determine the one or more physical and/or physiological parameters of the user based on the RF signals; and
determine if the emotional state of the user is an elevated emotional state based on the one or more physical and/or physiological parameters, wherein an elevated emotional state is an emotional state that deviates from a baseline emotional state of the user.
The bold language above corresponds to the abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 (whereas the underlined language is language that is addressed in step 2A prong 2 and step 2B). As the bold language above demonstrates, Applicant’s claims are directed toward determining an emotional state of an individual in an encounter with another individual (i.e., a “visitor” during a “visit”). Thus, the claims are directed toward managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is one of the certain method of organizing human activities that courts have found to comprise abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. Rather, the next step is to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). The revised guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the exception into a practical application: 1) an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, 2) an additional element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 3) an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 4) an additional element that applies or uses 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Examples where a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include: 1) use of “apply it” or the equivalent, i.e., merely using a computer to implement or perform an abstract idea, 2) an additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 3) an additional element that does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See id.
Applying these considerations to the claims in the instant application, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, they are merely generally linking the determination of a user’s emotional state to the technological environment of measuring physiological data with RF technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.05. As noted above, an abstract personal interaction is merely applied to a field of use or technological environment. Other than the limitations that are abstract for the reasons articulated above, Applicant has merely tied the abstract personal interaction to a field of use of RF technology, which fails to provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-12 are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1, 13, 14, and 15. Therefore, Claims 1-15 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN P MINCARELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-5909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Nathan C. Uber, can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/JAN P MINCARELLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights