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 .
Application Status
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/17/2024 has been entered. Claims 1–12 and 25 have been amended. Claims 14–24 and 26–36 have been cancelled. Claims 1–13 and 25 are being examined on the merits.
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 1-13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 13 and 25 recite an information processing apparatus, process and computer readable medium including the process, the process including the steps of process biometric information; compute a score; estimate an emotion and update a threshold value. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are analyze biometric data (such as a pulse, heart rate, activity etc.) from a subject, calculate a numerical “score” that reflects the subject’s mental state, using the score and benchmark for the individual, estimate the subject’s emotion. Updating the benchmark over time. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (biometric data; providing a score), judgement (estimate an emotion and updating the benchmark for evaluation). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 25 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are an information processing apparatus, at least one memory, at least one processor.
The information processing apparatus, at least one memory and at least one processor are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of process biometric information and compute a score is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of an information processing apparatus, at least one memory, at least one processor used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 25 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-12 are dependent from claim 1, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2-12 recite setting the threshold value, excluding score for a period , updating the threshold value, estimating an emotion etc. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely setting criterion associated with the subject for the mental processes, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-13 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotikela et al. (US 2020/0294670) in view of Curtis (US 2022/0036481).
Re claims 1, 13 and 25: Kotikela teaches
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions;
And at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
process biometric information of a subject (para. 46-58: data related to biophysiological signals collected, extracted, validated, preprocessed),
compute an indication of mental state of the subject (para. 27)
estimate an emotion of the subject with collected biophysiological signals from the wearable device, validating and processing those signals into features to classify the user into an emotional state (para 17, 28 and 31). Kotikela does not explicitly of compute a score indicating a mental state of the subject and criterion including a threshold value associated with the subject. Curtis teaches of collecting biorhythm data of a user through wearable user device, where algorithmic module analyzes biorhythm data and computes an emotional score for the user (para 67), that the threshold can be predetermined (para 69) and the system can learn and improve using historical emotional data (para 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Curtis with Kotikela to compute a score, estimate an emotion by use of a criterion and the score, the criterion including a threshold value associated with the subject, and updating the threshold value by use of a history of the score because both references are in the same field of endeavor and combining known elements using known methods to yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, Curtis teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to set the threshold value of the subject by use of a maximum value and a minimum value of the score of the subject (para 69).
Re claim 3, Kotikela teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to exclude the score for a period satisfying a specific condition in the history of the score (para 54, the biophysiological sensors of the smart wearable device may be pro-processed to remove noise, motion outliers etc.)
Re Claim 8, Curtis teaches wherein the score includes a plurality of scores indicating a plurality of types of mental states, respectively (para 3, many mental states such as confusion, concentration and worry maybe identified).
Re claim 10, Kotikela teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information from a wearable terminal worn by the subject; and wherein use the computation unit uses the biometric information acquired by the acquisition unit (para 29. Smart wearable device)
Re claim 11, Kotikela teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information from an external storage unit; and where in use the computation unit uses the biometric information acquired by the acquisition unit (para 29. Smart wearable device).
Re claim 12, Kotikela teaches of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause an output processing unit that causes an external terminal to output a notification in a case where an estimation result of the emotion satisfies a criterion (para. 56).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANG HU whose telephone number is (571)270-1344. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 6:30-4:30.
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.
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.
KANG HU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights