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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/1/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting or gathering data, analyzing the data to determine emotions or feelings, generating words describing the emotions or feelings and generating speech to articulate the words. Such can be performed by a human, mentally, using pen and paper to collect data, analyze the data to determine emotions, determining words associated with the emotions and articulating such words using generic device such as synthesizer or vocal cords. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited claimed language does not include positively recited language integrating the judicial exception into practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited claimed language does not include positively recited language indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-7 are dependent claims reciting limitations adding to the judicial exception and reciting generic device such as generative AI to perform the abstract idea. Such limitations does not include positively recited language integrating the abstract idea into practical application and/or indicating significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lima et al (US Publication No.: 20250232786).
Claim 1, Lima et al discloses
A collection unit that (Such language invokes 35 USC 112f, hence incorporates the apparatus or structure as described in the specification. Paragraph 18 discloses sensors collecting vital information.) collects vital information (Fig. 1, label 116. Paragraph 18 discloses one or more sensors 116 can read and detect a wide variety of contextual data about the user 110 using various sensory modes. Paragraph 19 discloses the sensors 116 detects one or more types of audio, video, physiological cognitive (e.g., cognitive load, affective state, stress, and attention and/or environmental signals that have a bearing on the paralinguistic state of the user 110.);
An analysis unit that (Such language invokes 35 USC 112f, hence incorporates the apparatus or structure as described in the specification. Paragraph 23 discloses 124 uses rule based models and/or machine learning models, wherein generative AI is a type of rule based model and/or machine learning model.) analyzes the information collected by the collection unit to understand emotions or thoughts (Fig. 1, label 102, 124. Paragraph 21 discloses 120 processes the sensor data and paragraph 23 discloses 124 takes the processed sensor data 122 and determines paralinguistic classification 126 associated with the user 110 in real time. The classifications include a set of emotion categories.);
A generation unit that (Such limitation invokes 35 USC 112f, hence incorporates the apparatus or structure as described in the specification. Fig. 1, label 112 as a AI agent receiving a prompt and generating a response, indicating a generative AI.) generates a word or a sentence based on analysis result obtained by the analysis unit (Fig. 1, label 112,128. Paragraph 25 discloses 128 provides a prompt to the AI agent 112, where the AI agent generates a paralinguistic augmented response 132. Paragraph 27 discloses 112 outputs a paralinguistic augmented response 132 that includes the simulated paralinguistic data, wherein the response includes verbal data such as textual response augmented with simulated paralinguistic data. The textual response is considered generated words or sentence based on the analysis result (paralinguistic classification indicating emotions based on the sensor data.); and
A speech unit that (Such limitation invokes 35 USC 112f, hence incorporates the apparatus or structure as described in the specification. Paragraph 48 discloses AI agent’s response is converted to speech audio using text to speech techniques. Abstract indicates generative AI agent, indicating generative AI is used to generate a response from 112.) articulates the word or the sentence generated by the generation unit (Fig. 1, label 108. Paragraph 28-29 discloses 108 parses the paralinguistic augmented response 132 and generates output 134 to be presented to the user using appropriate output channels. Such channels can be speech played via a player.).
Claim 2, Lima et al discloses the analysis unit analyzes emotions or thoughts using a generative AI (Paragraph 23 discloses 124 uses rule based models and/or machine learning models, wherein generative AI is a type of rule based model and/or machine learning model.).
Claim 3, Lima et al discloses the generation unit generates a word or a sentence using a generative AI (Fig. 1, label 112 as a AI agent receiving a prompt and generating a response, indicating a generative AI.).
Claim 4, Lima et al discloses the speech unit articulates a word or a sentence by using a generative AI. (Paragraph 48 discloses AI agent’s response is converted to speech audio using text to speech techniques. Abstract indicates generative AI agent, indicating generative AI is used to generate a response from 112.)
Claim 5, Lima et al discloses the collection unit collects a brain wave by using a brain wave sensor (Fig. 1, label 116. Paragraph 19 discloses sensors includes brain computer interfaces. Paragraph 23 discloses collection includes cognitive data such as EEG data indicating brain wave sensor.).
Claim 6, Lima et al discloses the collection unit collects a heartbeat by using a heartbeat sensor (Paragraph 19 discloses sensors can include any type such as physiological where heartbeat sensors falls under physiological sensor. Paragraph 23 discloses physiological data includes heart rate.).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lima et al (US Publication No.: 20250232786) in view of Newell et al (US Publication No.: 20220264182).
Claim 7, Lima et al discloses the collection unit (Fig. 1, label 116), but fails to disclose the collection unit estimates user’s emotions, and adjusts a timing of vital information collection based on the estimated emotions.
Newell et al discloses a collection unit (Fig. 2, label 102, 110,108 are sensors collecting input data.) estimates user’s emotions (Fig. 3, label 306,308 are time areas where EEG sensor data detects brain wave activity. Label 304 shows the brainwave lines corresponding to one of the sensors of the EEG sensor 108 detecting activity indicating the emotional state of the user (paragraph 62-63).) and adjusts a timing of vital information collection based on the estimated emotion (Fig. 3, label 322 as the output from image capture 110, label 328 indicates the image captured for analysis due to the user’s emotional state. Label 328 is taken at a time delayed or adjusted from frames taken before and after. This indicates an adjusted time of vital information collected based on the user’s emotional state.). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Lima et al’s collection unit by incorporating emotional estimation and time adjustment as disclosed by Newell et al so to improve the accuracy of capturing data best depicting the user’s emotional state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Andrew C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights