```````````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
Present office action is in response to application filed 02/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: In Claim 20, the recitation of “a digital communications network which, when executed by the computer processor, provides a network for members of a population to interact …” reads awkwardly. As per Wikipedia, a computer network is a group of two or more computers that are linked together. Networks are usually used to share resources, to exchange files, or to communicate with others1. To avoid claim ambiguity and maintain claim language consistency, the claim could be rewritten to recite of “a digital communications network for members of a population to interact …”.
Additionally in Claim 20, the recitation of “a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor: determining the stress resiliency by: receives the first stress …; receives the first …; receives at least …; and determines a recommendation …; provides the recommendation …; determines a change …; and determines an efficacy …” reads awkwardly. To avoid claim ambiguity and maintain claim language consistency, the claim could read “a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor: determines the stress resiliency by: receiving the first stress …; receiving the first …; receiving at least …; and determining a recommendation …; providing the recommendation …; determining a change …; and determining an efficacy …”. The claim will be interpreted as such for purpose of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Independent claims 1 and 14 each recites “a method to determine stress resiliency in an individual” (i.e. a process) and independent claim 20 recites “a system” (i.e. a machine). As such, independent claims 1, 14 and 20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention within § 101, i.e., process, and machine. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 20, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics. The additional element(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
A system comprising:
[L1] a computer processor;
[L2] a data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing: individual statistics having a stress resiliency and historic readings, stress indicator data having at least a first stress indicator level, a second stress indicator level, a third stress indicator level and reading timing data, an activity, and a recommendation;
[L3] an activity controller which, when executed by the computer processor, administers the activity;
[L4] a stress resilience generator which, when executed by the computer processor, determines the stress resiliency;
[L5] a digital communications network which, when executed by the computer processor, provides a network for members of a population to interact with each other and for an individual member to access a stress resiliency test for determining the individual member's stress resiliency;
[L6] a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor: determining the stress resiliency by: receives the first stress indicator level prior to the activity;
[L7] receives at least the second stress indicator level and the third stress indicator level at two or more time points after the activity;
[L8] determines a stress resiliency as a function of the first stress indicator level, the second stress indicator level, and the third stress indicator level;
[L9] determines a recommendation for an individual based on the stress resiliency;
[L10] provides the recommendation to the user;
[L11] determines a change in the stress resiliency over a plurality of iterations of determining the stress resiliency; and
[L12] determines an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the stress resiliency over the plurality of iterations.
The originally filed Specification, as published discloses the claimed invention relates to “determining stress resiliency of an individual member of a population” (¶ 2), that “online community can be utilized to help build positive behaviors and encourage people to make improvements in their lives” (¶ 4),“measures involve self-report/recall of features and frequency of specific events and subjective experiences associated with the nature and duration of affective states of individuals” (¶ 5) and “a wat to build upon the social media and access that computers have in order to build healthy lifestyles and develop healthy behaviors as well as improving techniques to measure stress” (¶ 5). It is common knowledge that healthcare providers have long used pen and paper to collect patients’ information, diagnose the patients and provide recommendations to the patients. Thus, other than reciting the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least the italicized claim limitations may be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, and judgments, may also characterized as mathematical concept, and may further be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
The originally filed Specification as published describes the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” at a high level of generality (for example, ¶ 50: Using their personal computers or devices (such as a cell phone), members can have access to activity trackers, health testing, etc. as well as other tools aimed at improving their health. Such information may be gathered from connected devices, such as, glucose measurements from a continuous glucose monitor, and wearables like Fitbit; ¶ 52: members can use their personal devices, such as a computer, tablet, cell phone, etc., to interact with a host system on a server; ¶ 54: The system shown in FIG. 1 includes a data repository (100). The data repository (100) is a type of storage unit or device (e.g., a file system, database, data structure, or any other storage mechanism) for storing data (described below). The data repository (100) may include multiple different, potentially heterogeneous, storage units and/or devices; ¶ 63: The server (130) is one or more computer processors, data repositories, communication devices, and supporting hardware and software. The server (130) may be in a distributed computing environment; ¶ 64: The server (130) also includes a computer processor (132). The computer processor (132) is one or more hardware or virtual processors which may execute computer readable program code that defines one or more applications, such as the activity controller (138) or the stress resiliency generator (140). An example of the computer processor (132) is described with respect to the computer processor(s) (302) of FIG. 3; ¶ 65: The server (130) also may include a server controller (134). The server controller (134) is software or application specific hardware which, when executed by the computer processor (326), controls and coordinates operation of the software or application specific hardware described herein; ¶ 66: The server (130) also includes the activity controller (138). The activity controller (138) is software or application specific hardware which, when executed by the computer processor (132) provides the activity as a digital stimulus or challenge to the user in order to generate a stress response, such as through a game; ¶ 75: the user devices (150) are computing systems (e.g., the computing system (300) shown in FIG. 3A) that communicate with the server (130). The user devices (150) may include a wearable monitor (156) and be configured to send stress indicator data (110) to the server (130). In an alternative embodiment, a separate wearable device or monitor (156) may be in communication with the user device (150), such as a smart watch, or blood pressure monitor. The user devices (150) may also include a user input device (152) and/or a display device (154) ; ¶ 97: The recommendation to interact with other members of the DCN may be provided to the individual by the DCN via a user device that the individual owns such as a smartphone, laptop, wearable device; ¶ 100: n FIG. 3A, the computing system (300) may include one or more computer processor(s) (302), non-persistent storage device(s) (304), persistent storage device(s) (306), a communication interface (308) (e.g., Bluetooth interface, infrared interface, network interface, optical interface, etc.), and numerous other elements and functionalities that implement the features and elements of the disclosure. The computer processor(s) (302) may be an integrated circuit for processing instructions. The computer processor(s) (302) may be one or more cores, or micro-cores, of a processor. The computer processor(s) (302) includes one or more processors. The computer processor(s) (302) may include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a tensor processing unit (TPU), combinations thereof; ¶ 101: The input device(s) (310) may include a touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, microphone, touchpad, electronic pen, or any other type of input device … ; The communication interface (308) may include an integrated circuit for connecting the computing system (300) to a network (not shown) (e.g., a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, mobile network, or any other type of network) or to another device, such as another computing device, and combinations thereof; ¶ 102: the output device(s) (312) may include a display device, a printer, external storage, or any other output device. One or more of the output device(s) (312) may be the same or different from the input device(s) (310). The input device(s) (310) and output device(s) (312) may be locally or remotely connected to the computer processor(s) (302). Many different types of computing systems exist, and the aforementioned input device(s) (310) and output device(s) (312) may take other forms; ¶ 108: Various embodiments also relate to a device or an apparatus for performing these operations. The apparatus can be specially constructed for the required purpose, or the apparatus can be a general-purpose computer selectively activated or configured by a computer program stored in the computer. In particular, various general-purpose machines employing one or more processors coupled to one or more computer readable medium, described below, can be used with computer programs written in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may be more convenient to construct a more specialized apparatus to perform the required operations …. The lack of details about the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” indicates that the additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions claimed. The additional elements [L2]: “storing data” (data gathering), [L3]: “administers the activity” (data transmission and presentation), [L6]: “receives the first stress indicator level” (data gathering), [L7]: “receives at least the second stress indicator level” (data gathering) and [L10]: “provides the recommendation” (data presentation) simply add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering, data transmission and data presentation. Each of the data gathering, data transmission and data presentation is generic and conventional. The claim limitations do not purport to improve the functioning of the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller”, do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic components. Further, the claim fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions implemented by the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” at each step are purely conventional. Each step performed in the claim does no more than require generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller”” in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the originally filed Specification as published describes the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” in general terms, without describing the particulars (for example, ¶¶ 50, 52, 54, 63-66, 75, 97, 100-102, 108), the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional components and techniques sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional element(s) “in a manner that indicates that the additional element(s) is/are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element(s) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”. The generic description of the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” indicates the claim steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process and that the implied component is used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In particular, the recited data gathering ([L2], [L6], [L7] and [L10]), data transmission ([L3]) and data presentation ([L3] and [L10]) amount to nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because these limitations are not distinguished from generic, conventional data gathering, data transmission and data presentation with a computer. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data” is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F.3d at 1372 (concluding “claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of representative independent claim 20 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the steps is equally generic and conventional. See Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission). Hence, the “computer processor”, “data repository”, “activity controller”, “stress resilience generator”, “digital communications network”, and “server controller” are generic, well-known, and conventional computing element(s). The use of the additional element(s) either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claim is patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 1:
Independent claim 1 recites “a method to determine stress resiliency in an individual, the method comprising” steps comparable to those of representative claim 20. Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional claim element(s). Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Because no additional claim elements are claimed, the judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application of that exception. Because the judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2: NO). Additionally, because no additional claim elements are claimed, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent-eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to independent Claim 14:
Independent claim 14 recites “a method to determine stress resiliency in an individual, the method comprising” steps comparable to those of representative claim 20. Independent claim 14 does not recite any additional claim element(s). Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A: Prong 1. (Step 2A – Prong 1: YES).
Because no additional claim elements are claimed, the judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application of that exception. Because the judicial exception is
not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2: NO). Additionally, because no additional claim elements are claimed, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent-eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
In regard to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 14 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for corresponding independent claims 1 and 14. Each of the recited additional claim elements, for example, “sample kit to collect at least one of: stool, blood, and saliva” (claim 11), “one of: a psychometric instrument, a heart rate monitor, and a pulse oximeter” (claim 12), and “digital communication network” (claim 13) is recited as a generic computer component used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-13 and 15-19 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, while dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 may have a narrower scope than corresponding independent claims 1 and 14, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jain et al., (US 20170071551 A1) (Jain) in view of Olla García-León et al., “Relationship between resilience and stress: Perceived stress, stressful life events, HPA axis response during a stressful task and hair cortisol”, hereinafter García-León.
Re claims 1, 14 and 20:
[Claim 20] Jain teaches or at least suggests a system comprising: a computer processor; a data repository in communication with the computer processor and storing: individual statistics having a stress resiliency and historic readings, stress indicator data having at least a first stress indicator level, a second stress indicator level, a third stress indicator level and reading timing data, an activity, and a recommendation (at least ¶ 5: determining a stress level of a user based on a sympathovagal balance (SVB) value calculated based on a set of measurement data may include determining a heart-rate variability (HRV) characteristic as a ratio involving a number of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity markers within a first portion of the set of measurement data and the number of ANS activity markers within a second portion of the set of measurement data, and then determining the stress level of the user based on the HRV characteristic …; ¶ 16: FIG. 7D illustrates a graph that shows a range of stress values over time for a user; ¶ 46: systems and methods for analyzing and monitoring not just stress, but also stress resilience as a marker of the user's stress coping skill … allow for customizable refinement of the collected data to provide more use and insights for the user and/or other third parties (e.g., medical professionals); ¶ 68: HRV data and blood flow data may be collected, and then based on these sets of data, a stress level may be estimated); an activity controller which, when executed by the computer processor, administers the activity; a stress resilience generator which, when executed by the computer processor, determines the stress resiliency; a digital communications network which, when executed by the computer processor, provides a network for members of a population to interact with each other and for an individual member to access a stress resiliency test for determining the individual member's stress resiliency; a server controller which, when executed by the computer processor: determining the stress resiliency (at least ¶ 34: FIG. 1 illustrates a particular number of user 110, client system 120, network 130, servers 140, and data stores 150 … ; ¶ 71: FIG. 6 illustrates an example method 600 for stress detection … deployed on one or more electronic devices, such as a mobile phone, tablet computer, smart watch, head-mounted device, body-harness-secured devices, and the like mobile devices, wearable devices, fixed-location computing devices, and/or network or cloud deployed systems, having suitable communication, processing, sensing facilities, other suitable devices, or any combination thereof) by: receives the first stress indicator level prior to the activity; receives at least the second stress indicator level; and determines a stress resiliency as a function of the first stress indicator level, the second stress indicator level and the third stress indicator level at two or more time points after the activity; determines a recommendation for an individual based on the stress resiliency; provides the recommendation to the user (at least ¶ 5: determining a stress level of a user based on a sympathovagal balance (SVB) value calculated based on a set of measurement data may include determining a heart-rate variability (HRV) characteristic as a ratio involving a number of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity markers within a first portion of the set of measurement data and the number of ANS activity markers within a second portion of the set of measurement data, and then determining the stress level of the user based on the HRV characteristic. The first and second portions of the set of measurement data may be selected based on a user-specific baseline SVB value that divides a histogram representation of the set of measurement data into the first and second portions; ¶ 7: monitoring a stress level of a user may include determining, based on biological measurements on one or more physiological markers received in a first sampling mode, the stress level of the user, and then dynamically switching to a second sampling mode when it is determined that one or more of the physiological markers are above a threshold level, the second sampling mode being different from the first sampling mode; ¶ 8: monitoring the health characteristic of the user based on one or more bio-sensing measurements in comparison to the baseline health value corresponding to the selected context; ¶ 16: FIG. 7D illustrates a graph that shows a range of stress values over time for a user; ¶ 32: FIG. 23 illustrates an example method for determining a user's emotional health based on a health-resiliency measurement; ¶¶ 45: analyzing and monitoring not just stress, but also stress resilience as a marker of the user's stress coping skill; ¶ 46: measuring stress … systems and methods for analyzing and monitoring not just stress, but also stress resilience as a marker of the user's stress coping skill … allow for customizable refinement of the collected data to provide more use and insights for the user and/or other third parties (e.g., medical professionals; ¶ 48: determining a stress level of a user may be based on a SVB value calculated based on a set of measurement data …determining a HRV characteristic as a ratio involving a number of ANS activity markers within a first portion of the set of measurement data and the number of ANS activity markers within a second portion of the set of measurement data, and then determining the stress level of the user based on the HRV characteristic. The first and second portions of the set of measurement data may be selected based on a user-specific baseline SVB value that divides a histogram representation of the set of measurement data into the first and second portions; ¶ 172: alerting the user of the occurrence of a stress event and providing recommendations for how to reduce stress and return to homeostasis).
Jain appears to be silent on but García-León teaches or at least suggests the processor determines a stress resiliency as a function of the first stress indicator level, the second stress indicator level, and the third stress indicator level (at least abstract: evaluate the relationship between resilience and the different measures of stress …; page 88, col 1: … Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis is a biological system activated by threats and negative consequences even in an anticipated setting … HPA axis response to a stressor can be also a useful index of stress in a specific context …; page 88, col 2: … cortisol based measures of stress and resilience … … page 89, section 2.2.7: … Salivary cortisol samples were obtained at four collection times in the study. The first sample was collected after the explanation of the TSST -VR (cortisol pre-exposure). The second sample (cortisol post-exposure) was collected upon completion of the three tasks (anticipatory stress, exposure, and arithmetic task). The third sample was obtained 10 min after the completion of the task (cortisol post +10 min). The last sample was obtained 20 min after the end of the TSST-RV task (cortisol post+20 min)). Hence, in view of García-León’s teaching of evaluation of the relationship between resilience and different measures of stress using four collection samples and Jain’s two collection samples, modifying Jain as claimed would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests determines a change in the stress resiliency over a plurality of iterations of determining the stress resiliency; and determines an efficacy of the intervention based on the change in the stress resiliency over the plurality of iterations (at least Jain: ¶ 51: If the stress level is above or below a threshold, blood flow data may be used to confirm or adjust the stress level estimate; ¶ 224: … the notifications to the user may be tailored based on the type of measurements that are made about the context, the baseline value, and the corresponding resiliency measurement (e.g., providing recommendations that are based on an awareness of the need of the context as well as what has been known to be effective for the user).
[Claim 1] The claim recites “a method to determine stress resiliency in an individual, the method comprising” steps comparable to those of representative claim 20. Accordingly, independent claim 14 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 20.
[Claim 14] The claim recites “a method to determine stress resiliency in an individual, the method comprising” steps comparable to those of representative claim 20. Accordingly, independent claim 14 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 20.
Re claims 2-13 and 15-19:
[Claim 2] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests determines wherein the plurality of stress indicator levels is a cortisol level (at least García-León: page 88, col 1: … Hypothalamic Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) is a widely used task to study the activation of HPA axis …; relation between resilience and salivary cortisol levels during the TSST … page 89, section 2.2.7: … HPA axis response during the stressful task measured via salivary cortisol).
[Claim 3] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the plurality of stress indicator levels is calculated as an index of the levels of several stress indicators (at least García-León: page 89, col 2: three global indexes of psychological distress such as Global Severity Index, Total Positive Symptoms and Positive Symptom Distress Index). Any difference between the claim and Jain in view of García-León would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 4] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the plurality of stress indicator levels is measured using saliva (at least García-León: page 89, section 2.2.7: … HPA axis response during the stressful task measured via salivary cortisol … Salivary cortisol samples were collected by using Salivette (R) Cortisol (Sarstedt, Numbrecht, Germany, and Ref.51.1534)).
[Claim 5] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the activity is a game that adapts to a user playing the game to provide a constant degree of difficulty (at least Jain: ¶ 70: … FIG. 2B … interfacing with a virtual reality device or game console … the virtual reality device or game console may adjust its content based on the user's stress level (e.g., adjust the dram level of the soundtrack or adjust the game's difficulty).
[Claim 6] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the activity induces a mental challenge or psychological challenge (at least Jain: ¶ 44: … SVB measurement has been determined to be both highly sensitive as well as specific in detecting mental states and stress levels of users, in addition to having a wide range of applicability to various other health measurements; ¶ 87: measurement of psychological stress can be advantageous in the monitoring and management of health and/or wellness).
[Claims 7 and 17] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the stress resiliency is calculated as a function of the difference between the first stress indicator level and both the second stress indicator level and the third indicator level (at least García-León: page 91, col 1: no significant differences between groups in chronic stress measured by hair cortisol (t=−1.38; p < .17) … non-significant differences between groups (low and high resilience) were found in HPA axis response (calculated by AUCi) (t=−0.203; p=.84) … Repeated measures analysis during TSST-VR at pre, post, follow-up (10 min), follow-up (20 min) also showed no significant differences between groups in activation during the four times: pre (t=−0.798; p=.428), post (t=−0.489; p=.626), first follow-up (t=−0.642; p=.523) and second follow-up (t=−1.821; p=.73) … differences between-groups (low and high resilience) for perceived stress, showing higher levels during the last month in the low resilience group in comparison with the high resilience group … resilience differentiating … ) significant
difference between high and low resilient groups in number and intensity of current events but not in past events, showing the low resilience group a higher number of present life events, which are perceived as more stressful …).
[Claims 8 and 18] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the stress resiliency is determined as a function of the time taken for a fourth stress indicator level taken after the third stress indicator level to return to the range of the first stress indicator level (at least García-León: page 90, col 1: test if there were significant differences between time points of the TSST-VR (pre, post, post+10, post +20), an ANOVA mixed 2×4 was conducted to compare the response
of the HPA axis between both groups of low and high resilience …; page 91, col 1: … test if there were significant differences between time points of the TSST-VR (pre, post, post+10, post +20), an ANOVA mixed 2×4 was conducted to compare the response of the HPA axis between both groups of low and high resilience …).
[Claims 9 and 19] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the stress resiliency is determined as a function of a slope of the second stress indicator level and the third stress indicator level (at least García-León: there were no significant differences between high and low resilient groups in cortisol slope during the TSST; page 92, col 1 page 92, col 1: as cortisol awakening response, whose slope is altered by chronic stress … high resilient people show a cortisol awakening response slope less altered than those who have low resilience levels. Therefore, high resilient people would reflect lower perceived chronic stress …). Any difference between the claim and Jain in view of García-León would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 10] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the stress resiliency is calculated as an index of a function of the difference between the first stress indicator level and both the second stress indicator level and the third stress indicator level, the time it takes for a fourth stress indicator level taken after the third stress indicator level to return to the range of the first stress indicator level, and a function of a slope of both the second stress indicator level and the third stress indicator level (at least García-León: page 89, col 2: three global indexes of psychological distress such as Global Severity Index, Total Positive Symptoms and Positive Symptom Distress Index). Any difference between the claim and Jain in view of García-León would have been an obvious matter of choice.
[Claim 11] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein measuring the plurality of stress indicator levels comprises using a sample kit to collect at least one of: stool, blood, and saliva (at least Jain: ¶ 168: any suitable method for monitoring any relevant physiological markers (e.g., … glucose readings, blood oxygen levels … blood hemoglobin level measurements, blood lipid level measurements … other suitable health/physiological measurements, or any combination thereof); García-León: page 89, section 2.2.7.1: … Salivary cortisol samples were collected by using Salivette (R) Cortisol (Sarstedt, Numbrecht, Germany, and Ref.51.1534) ).
[Claim 12] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein measuring the plurality of stress indicator levels comprises taking a reading using at least one of: a psychometric instrument, a heart rate monitor, and a pulse oximeter (at least Jain: ¶¶ 5, 6: determining a stress level of a user based on a sympathovagal balance (SVB) value calculated based on a set of measurement data may include determining a heart-rate variability (HRV) characteristic … determining a HRV measurement of a user may include receiving, from a sensor of an electronic device of the user, heart sensor data).
[Claim 13] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein measuring the plurality of stress indicator levels comprises sharing the plurality of stress indicator levels using a digital communication network (at least Jain: ¶ 4: Mobile electronic devices may be part of a communication network such as a local area network, wide area network, cellular network, the Internet, or any other suitable network; GIG. 1 and associated text; ¶ 35: user 110 may be an individual (e.g., human user), an entity (e.g., an enterprise, business, or third-party application), or a group (e.g., of individuals or entities) that interacts or communicates with client system 12 … these devices may communicate with each other via network 130).
[Claim 15] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests wherein the method is performed at multiple instances, and wherein the method further comprising determining a change in the stress resiliency over multiple iterations of the method (at least García-León: page 91, col 1: Repeated measures analysis during TSST-VR at pre, post, follow-up (10 min), follow-up (20 min) also showed no significant differences between groups in activation during the four times: pre (t=−0.798; p=.428), post (t=−0.489; p=.626), first follow-up (t=−0.642; p=.523) and second follow-up (t=−1.821; p=.73)).
[Claim 16] Jain in view of García-León teaches or at least suggests determining an efficacy of an intervention based on the change in the stress resiliency over the multiple instances (at least Jain: ¶ 8: one or more of repeated biological states, repeated user activity, or space-time coordinates of the user, and then monitoring the health characteristic of the user based on one or more bio-sensing measurements in comparison to the baseline health value corresponding to the selected context; García-León: page 91: Repeated measures analysis during TSST-VR at pre, post, follow-up (10 min), follow-up (20 min) also showed no significant differences between groups in activation during the four times: pre (t=−0.798; p=.428), post (t=−0.489; p=.626), first follow-up (t=−0.642; p=.523) and second follow-up (t=−1.821; p=.73)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO
Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Computer network - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prosecution Insights