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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application (foreign priority application FI20245274 filed March 5, 2024) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 5, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error.
Claim 9 recites the following: “(currently amended)” in the second to last line of the claim. All the while, claim 10 is missing its status identifier, reasonably believed to be “(currently amended)” within the second to last line of claim 9. This is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 9 without the embedded “(currently amended)” and interpret claim 10 having the status identifier “(currently amended).” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 10-14 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 9
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 1-14 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 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 9 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “monitoring attainment,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“receiving a first sensor data, and a second sensor data, wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data are collected while the user is engaged in the activity;
determining an eye fixation frequency and an eye fixation percentage by processing the first sensor data, and determining a heart rate and a heart rate variability by processing the second sensor data;
determining a focus index of the user, based on the eye fixation frequency and the eye fixation percentage;
determining a stress index of the user, based on the heart rate and the heart rate variability;
determining a flow index of the user, based on a difference between the focus index and the stress index;
detecting that the user has attained the flow state for the activity, when the determined flow index is equal to or greater than a predefined flow index for the activity;
receiving a third sensor data; and
determining at least one of: a pose of the user's head, a pose of a head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, a pose of a user-interaction controller that is held or worn by the user, by processing the third sensor data,
wherein the at least one of: the pose of the user's head, the pose of the head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, the pose of the wearable device worn by the user, is utilized when determining at least one of: the focus index, the stress index, a fatigue index.”
Per claim 9:
“receive a first sensor data, and a second sensor data,
wherein the first sensor data and the second sensor data are collected while the user is engaged in the activity;
determine an eye fixation frequency and an eye fixation percentage by processing the first sensor data, and determining a heart rate and a heart rate variability by processing the second sensor data;
determine a focus index of the user, based on the eye fixation frequency and the eye fixation percentage;
determine a stress index of the user, based on the heart rate and the heart rate variability;
determine a flow index of the user, based on a difference between the focus index and the stress index;
detect that the user has attained the flow state for the activity, when the determined flow index is equal to or greater than a predefined flow index for the activity;
receive a third sensor data from the tracking means; and
determine at least one of: a pose of the user's head, a pose of a head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, a pose of a user-interaction controller that is held or worn by the user, by processing the third sensor data,
wherein the at least one of: the pose of the user's head, the pose of the head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, the pose of the wearable device worn by the user, is utilized when determining at least one of: the focus index, the stress index, a fatigue index.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “an eye-tracking means,” “a heart rate monitoring device,” “a tracking means” and “at least one processor,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “monitoring attainment,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “an eye-tracking means,” “a heart rate monitoring device,” “a tracking means” and “at least one processor,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the element of “an eye-tracking means,” is best described in para. [0037] as follows: “[0037] Throughout the present disclosure, the term “eye-tracking means” refers to a specialized equipment that is employed to detect at least an extent of closure of the user's eyes, and/or a movement of the user's eyes. Such eye-tracking is performed when a system comprising the eye-tracking means, in operation, is worn by the user. Optionally, the eye-tracking means is further employed to detect and/or follow a gaze direction of the user of the system. Optionally, the eye-tracking means is implemented by way of at least one of: contact lenses having sensors, cameras monitoring features of the eyes, sensors arranged on a frame of the system. Such features may comprise at least one of: a shape of a pupil of each eye, a size of the pupil, corneal reflections of light emanating from a real-world environment from a surface of each eye, a relative position of the pupil with respect to the corneal reflections, a relative position of the pupil with respect to corners of each eye. Such eye-tracking means are well-known in the art.” Due to the list of examples and being “well-known in the art,” this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, the element of “a heart rate monitoring device,” is best described in para. [0038] as follows: “[0038] The term “heart rate monitoring device” refers to a specialized device that is designed to measure and track the user's heart rate, optionally, in real time. Such measuring and tracking of the user's heart rate is performed when the system comprising the heart rate monitoring device, in operation, is worn by the user. Optionally, the heart rate monitoring device is implemented by way of at least one of: an optical sensor, an electrocardiogramansor, photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor. Such heart rate monitoring devices are well-known in the art.” Due to the list of examples and being “well-known in the art,” this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Continuing, the element of “a tracking means” is best described in para. [0055] as follows: “[0055] Throughout the present disclosure the term “tracking means” refers to an equipment that is used to measure and record the third sensor data, wherein the third sensor data is indicative of at least one of: a motion, an orientation, a position of an object in a three-dimensional (3D) space. Optionally, the tracking means is implemented as an inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the IMU comprises at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscopes, a magnetometer. It will be appreciated that the third sensor data is collected repeatedly by the tracking means throughout an operation of the system, as at least one of: the motion, the orientation, the position of the object in the 3D spaces keeps changing. An up-to-date third sensor data allows for determining a relative position of the object. In an instance, when the tracking means is implemented as the accelerometer, the third sensor data comprises measurements related to linear acceleration along multiple axes. In another instance, when the tracking means is implemented as the gyroscope, the third sensor data comprises measurements related to angular velocity or changes in orientation along different axes. In yet another instance, when the tracking means is implemented as the magnetometer, the third sensor data comprises measurements related to strength and direction of the magnetic field around the tracking means.” Due to the list of examples, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Finally, the element of “at least one processor,” is best described in para. [0040] as follows: “[0040] It will be appreciated that the at least one processor is communicably coupled with the eye-tracking means, and the heart rate monitoring device. The at least one processor could be implemented as any one of: a microprocessor, a microcontroller, or a controller. As an example, the at least one processor could be implemented as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip, or a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) chip.” Due to the list of examples, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 9. Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0133212 to Krueger (herein referred to as “Krueger I”) and U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0210442 to Krueger (herein referred to as “Krueger II”). However, Krueger I and Krueger II do not explicitly teach: “receiving a third sensor data from a tracking means; and determining at least one of: a pose of the user's head, a pose of a head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, a pose of a user-interaction controller that is held or worn by the user, by processing the third sensor data, wherein the at least one of: the pose of the user's head, the pose of the head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, the pose of the wearable device worn by the user, is utilized when determining at least one of: the focus index, the stress index, a fatigue index,” per claim 1.
Likewise, Krueger I and Krueger II do not explicitly teach: “receive a third sensor data from the tracking means; and determine at least one of: a pose of the user's head, a pose of a head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, a pose of a user-interaction controller that is held or worn by the user, by processing the third sensor data, wherein the at least one of: the pose of the user's head, the pose of the head-mounted device worn by the user on the user's head, the pose of the wearable device worn by the user, is utilized when determining at least one of: the focus index, the stress index, a fatigue index,” per claim 9. Therefore, claims 1-14 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights