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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s July 23, 2025 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23, 2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-9 are to method (process). Claims 10-11 is to apparatus (machine) when the elements are interpreted in the light of Specification [55-56] and [60].
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. An information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
acquiring first information about a period of time during which a user performs an activity;
determining, based on the first information, whether a current time has reached a first point in time or not, the first point in time being earlier than a scheduled end time by a predetermined amount of time, the scheduled end time being a point in time at which the activity is to finish; and
giving, when the current time is determined to have reached the first point in time earlier than the scheduled end time by the predetermined amount of time, a first stimulus for heightening a degree of relaxation of the user to the user by controlling a stimulation apparatus.
The claimed invention is directed towards monitoring time and at the appointed time follow a scheduled relaxation stimulus. This falls into the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity - managing personal behavior.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The acquiring elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The claimed invention uses a generic computer (see Spec. [55-56] and [60]), which cannot transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alailima et al (US 11,507,178 B2)
Claim 1
Alailima teaches an information processing method executed by a computer (Alailima abstract “methods are provided for generating a quantified indicator of cognitive skills in an individual”), the information processing method comprising:
acquiring first information about a period of time during which a user performs an activity (Alailima [7] “The first instance of the task may be a continuous task. The first instance of the task may be the task presented over a first time interval, the second instance of the task may the task presented over a second time interval, and the first time interval may be different from the second time interval.” and [98] “ the term “cognition” refers to the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses . . . computer-implemented device according to the principles herein can be configured to collect data indicative of user interaction with a platform product, and to compute metrics that quantify user performance.”);
determining, based on the first information, whether a current time has reached a first point in time or not, the first point in time being earlier than a scheduled end time by a predetermined amount of time, the scheduled end time being a point in time at which the activity is to finish (Alailima [62] “secondary task that is presented simultaneously with a primary task, either over a short, discrete time period or over an extended time period (less than the time frame over which the primary task is presented), or over the entire period of time of the primary task . . . interference can be presented at the end of the primary task or at discrete, interim periods during presentation of the primary task. The degree of interference can be modulated based on the type, amount, and/or temporal length of presentation of the interference relative to the primary task”); and
giving, when the current time is determined to have reached the first point in time earlier than the scheduled end time by the predetermined amount of time, a first stimulus for heightening a degree of relaxation of the user to the user by controlling a stimulation apparatus (Alailima [59] ““target” refers to a type of stimulus that is specified to an individual (e.g., in instructions) to be the focus for an interaction. A target differs from a non-target in at least one characteristic or feature . . . overall are still instructed to an individual as a target, in an example where the individual is instructed/required to make a choice (e.g., between two different degrees of a facial expression or other characteristic/feature difference, such as but not limited to between a happy face and a happier face ”, [63] “the term “stimulus,” refers to a sensory event configured to evoke a specified functional response from an individual. The degree and type of response can be quantified based on the individual's interactions with a measuring component (including using sensor devices or other measuring components)”, [108] “discriminating features of the targeting task that the user responds to is a feature in the platform that displays an emotion, similar to the way that shape, color, and/or position may be used in an interference element in interference processing”, [256] “implement a form of multi-tasking to provide measures of the individual's capabilities in deciding whether to perform one action instead of another and to activate the rules of the current task in the presence of an interference such that the interference diverts the individual's attention from the task, as a measure of an individual's cognitive abilities in executive function control.”).
Claim 2
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
estimating a degree of performance of the activity that the user performs (Alailima [171] and [191] see efficiency), wherein
the first stimulus is given in a case where the current time is determined to have reached the first point in time and, in addition, where the degree of performance has dropped (Alailima [103] and [210]).
Claim 3
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 2, wherein based on an operation log that indicates an input operation via a mouse or a keyboard used by the user, the degree of performance is estimated (Alailima [37], [305], and [315] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be present in the art).
Claim 4
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring biometric information on the user (Alailima [132]); and
estimating, based on the biometric information, a degree of tension of the user (Alailima [136]),
wherein the first stimulus is given in a case where the current time is determined to have reached the first point in time and, in addition, where the degree of tension has dropped (Alailima [171-172] and [235]).
Claim 5
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
increasing an intensity of the first stimulus as the current time comes close to the scheduled end time (Alailima [143]).
Claim 6
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring biometric information on the user (Alailima [132]);
estimating, based on the biometric information, the degree of relaxation (Alailima [136]); and
controlling an intensity of the first stimulus according to the degree of relaxation (Alailima [200]),
wherein the intensity of the first stimulus is increased when a rate of increase in the degree of relaxation is lower than a predetermined rate of increase while the first stimulus is being given (Alailima [171-172] and [235]).
Claim 7
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first stimulus includes at least one stimulus selected from the group consisting of scent, sound, video, light, heat, and airstream (Alailima [38], where the claim is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 8
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring biometric information on the user (Alailima [132]);
estimating, based on the biometric information, the degree of relaxation (Alailima [136]); and
giving stimuli each of which heightens the degree of relaxation to the user in respective periods of time before the first point in time, the stimulus given in each one of the periods of time being different from the stimulus given in another one of the periods of time (Alailima [113], [143], and [253]),
wherein a stimulus that produces a greatest effect of heightening the degree of relaxation, among the stimuli given to the user in the periods of time, is determined, and the determined stimulus is given as the first stimulus to the user (Alailima [99], [106], and [208]).
Claim 9
Alailima teaches an information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
estimating a degree of performance of an activity that a user performs (Alailima [207] see performance level);
determining, based on the degree of performance, whether or not the activity is in a closing phase that is before the activity finishes (Alailima [128]); and
giving a first stimulus for heightening a degree of relaxation of the user to the user by controlling a stimulation apparatus in a case where the activity is determined to be in the closing phase that is before the activity finishes (Alailima [195] and [274]).
Claim 10
Alailima teaches an information processing apparatus (Alailima abstract) comprising:
a determination unit that acquires first information about a period of time during which a user performs an activity, and determines, based on the first information, whether a current time has reached a first point in time or not, the first point in time being earlier than a scheduled end time by a predetermined amount of time, the scheduled end time being a point in time at which the activity is to finish (Alailima [4], [59] and [62]); and
a control unit that gives, when the current time is determined to have reached the first point in time earlier than the scheduled end time by the predetermined amount of time, a first stimulus for heightening a degree of relaxation of the user to the user by controlling a stimulation apparatus (Alailima [4], [59], [63], [108], and [265]).
Claim 11
Alailima teaches all the limitations of the stimulation system comprising:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (Alailima abstract); and
the stimulation apparatus (Alailima [77] and [146]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Libby (US 12,145,833 B1) teaches stop time represents an end of the valid period for the event. When the stop time has occurred, the valve 206a and 206b are closed, such that beer can no longer be dispensed from the beverage system 302. The stop time can be, for example, the time at which the event is scheduled to end, a time prior to (or after) the time at which the event is scheduled to end, or a time at which a specified event occurs. For example, the stop time during a football game can be the time at which the third quarter ends (i.e., the time at which the time remaining in the third quarter reaches 0:00). At the expiration of the third quarter the beverage access controller 204 receives data specifying that the game has reached the end of the third quarter, and the time at which the data are received can be set as the stop time for the event. In turn, the beverage access controller 204 can interact with the valves 206a and 206b to place these valves in the closed position.
Harrison et al (US 2025/0191722 A1) teaches the indication of a predicted user performance score at the defined point in time is determined based on a current state of the user and any detected scheduled activities of the user without any recommendations or adaptations proposed by the method. For example, a predicted numerical user performance score of 65% at the defined point in time of 8:00 am on Monday can be calculated based on the user's current physiological state “exhausted after running 20 km” and the scheduled activity “birthday party” starting on Sunday night at 22:00 μm. The method can then select an activity such as “rest for 4 hours starting at 12:00 am Saturday” and/or select a time point of 19:00 pm and/or a time range of 19:00 pm to 23:00 pm for the scheduled activity “birthday party” for adjusting the predicted user performance score of 65% to the desired user performance score of e.g. 90%.
Jorasch et al (US 2021/0374391 A1) teaches user may want to try and stop smoking cigarettes and need some coaching from headset 4000. A smoke sensor may be attached to connector point 4037a-b by the user or as displayed in attachable sensor example 4040. When a user lights a cigarette and smoke emits, an attachable sensor 4040 may detect the smoke, provide the information to processor 4055 and provide an alert to the user reminding them to stop smoking. This alert from the processor may be in the form of a vibration from vibration generator 4080, an audible alert saying, ‘please stop smoking, it is bad for you’ in speakers 4010a-b, or in any other forms of feedback (e.g. buzz, beep, chirp). Boom lights 4044 may display a color or pattern (e.g. red blinking) and/or display 4046 may provide an image to distract the user and remind the user to stop smoking (e.g. a video showing someone suffering from lung disease or a picture of their family).
Jorasch et al (US 2021/0373676 A1) teaches the central controller 110 may determine that the user tends to perform better in colder temperatures. Therefore, ambient conditions may be used to make predictions about a user's game performance, or to recommend to a user that he seek more favorable ambient conditions (e.g., by turning on the air conditioning). In various embodiments, ambient conditions may be detected using one or more sensors of a peripheral device, using a local weather service, or via any other means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights