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
Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and addressed below.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
With respect to applicant’s amendments filed on 7-23-26, they have been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the office action does not identify any limitation that manages personal behavior or relationship interactions between people. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interactions between users and the system falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
Applicant argues that machine learning component is not an activity organized among people. Examiner respectfully disagrees, high level machine learning components can fall under certain methods of organizing human activity the machine learning component are rules which managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to managing or assessing a person’s stress rather the claims recited a particular computer implemented sequence in which a digital human comprising a machine learning component is generated for a user. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “digital human” is just generated for a user. The digital human is a mere label to the machine learning profile of a user. The machine learning component is the element that is trained based on human computer interaction which determines stress level and a mitigation based on stress value.
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 1-20 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:
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are drawn to system, computer implemented method and computer program product which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recite “generating a digital human corresponding to a user wherein the digital human comprises a machine learning component corresponding to a stress profile associated with a user”, “receiving a first dataset associated with one or more user interactions”, “training the machine learning component based on the first dataset wherein the machine learning component is trained to output based on human computer interaction data corresponding to an involvement of the user in a software development project, a predicted stress measurement value associated with the user wherein training the machine learning component comprises determining a set of stress parameter weights based on a similarity between a first profile vector generated from historical parameter values associated with the user and a second profile vector from a current set of parameter values associated with the user and wherein the set of stress parameter weights is calibrated against biological data associated with the user,” “receiving a second data set comprising a deployment set of parameter values of a set of corresponding stress parameters”, “determining based on the machine learning model the set of stress parameter weights and the deployment set of parameter values and without further biological data the predicted stress measurement value”, “outputting to a mitigation component, stress content indicative of the predicted stress measurement value”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “a processor set”, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations”, “one or more health measurement devices”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim do not recite additional element which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 147 that “Processor 620 includes a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a microprocessor, a controller, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, an application-specific integrated circuit, and/or another type of processing component. Processor 620 is implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, processor 620 includes one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform a function. Memory 630 includes a random access memory, a read only memory, and/or another type of memory (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory”.
Paragraph 80 recites “(HMD data) received from biological monitors (e.g., the biological monitor 124 or 126 shown in FIG. 1). In some implementations, the training data also may include behavior data (e.g., social interaction data, work habit data, etc.) received from a behavior monitor (e.g., the behavior monitor 130 shown in FIG. 1).
The claim do not recite additional element which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 12-16, 18-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights