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 .
Detailed Action
Per MPEP 2001.06(b), Examiner notes that he has reviewed all cited prior art in related applications 18/397,777, 17/581,929, 16/193,177, 15/051,892, 15/010,412, 14/833,035, 14/658,198, and 13/656,874.
Claim Construction
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A system comprising:
a plurality of software agents, each configured to extract token instances from sensor data during a user experience, wherein each token instance represents a discrete perceivable element within the experience;
a response decomposition module configured to: receive a measurement of affective response of a user to an experience containing multiple token instances; receive attention data indicating the user's attention level to each token instance; and compute individual token response values by attributing portions of the measurement to token instances based on their respective attention levels; and
an agent orchestration module configured to coordinate data sharing between the software agents and the token library.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the response decomposition module is further configured to: identify a token instance of interest based on the attention data; and attribute a portion of the measurement to the token instance of interest that is proportional to its attention level relative to other token instances.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein each software agent comprises a privacy manager configured to process physiological data locally before transmitting token response data to the token library.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the response decomposition module is configured to: separate token instances into background tokens and tokens of interest based on attention levels; predict an expected response to the background tokens; and attribute a difference between the measurement and the expected response to the tokens of interest.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner found support in the specification for these claims in paragraphs 0004-006 and support for the models having hardware structure in paragraphs 0105, 0108 (describing figure 2, “This system, like other systems described in this disclosure, includes at least a memory 402 and a processor 401. The memory 402 stores computer executable modules described below, and the processor 401 executes the computer executable modules stored in the memory 402.”), and 0655 “Executing modules included in embodiments described in this disclosure typically involves hardware. For example, a module may comprise dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured (e.g., as a special-purpose processor, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to perform certain operations.”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: the third limitation recites “a token library storing associations between token instances and response values” but the second limitation recites both “measurements of affective response” and “token response values” so the antecedent basis of “response values” in the third limitation is unclear.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a plurality of software agents, each configured to extract token instances from sensor data during a user experience, wherein each token instance represents a discrete perceivable element within the experience; and a response decomposition module configured to: compute individual token response values by attributing portions of the measurement to token instances based on their respective attention levels. Extracting token instances from data and computing token response values each invoke a computer as a tool to accomplish and are recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. This claim recites additional elements of a response decomposition module configured to: receive a measurement of affective response of a user to an experience containing multiple token instances; receive attention data indicating the user's attention level to each token instance, which are data gathering steps and insignificant extra-solution activity; a token library storing associations between token instances and response values from multiple users across multiple experience domains, and storing data is insignificant extra-solution activity; and an agent orchestration module configured to coordinate data sharing between the software agents and the token library, which amounts to generic computer networking activity in between modules and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites a system comprising a plurality of software agents, a response decomposition module, a token library, and an agent orchestration module, which are software modules and generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0002 describes technical limitations to current approaches for measuring affective response including “(a) Lack of granular attribution,” “(b) Domain-specific silos” lacking cross-domain analysis for experiences, (c) sophisticated mechanisms to correlate attention patterns with emotional responses, “(d) Privacy and scalability challenges,” and static response models that don't adapt to changing contexts or learn from cross-domain patterns. Examiner does not see steps recited in the claims that improves upon any of these difficulties, and the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claim as a whole, the data gathering step is recited broadly and amounts to sending and receiving data across a network per specification figures 1, 9 network 112 and figure 70 network 1528 and also paragraphs 0125 and 0286, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The generic networking activity is also sending and receiving data across a network per specification figures 1, 9 network 112 and figure 70 network 1528 and also paragraphs 0125 and 0286, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Storing data is also routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The plurality of software agents, a response decomposition module, a token library, and an agent orchestration module, which are software modules and generic components of a computer. Thus the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claim 2 recites wherein the response decomposition module is further configured to: identify a token instance of interest based on the attention data, and identifying a token instance of interest invokes the computer as a tool and involves evaluating and is a mental process; and attribute a portion of the measurement to the token instance of interest that is proportional to its attention level relative to other token instances, and attributing a portion of a measurement is assigning a weight to the measurement per specification paragraph 0740 which is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claim 3 recites wherein each software agent comprises a privacy manager configured to process physiological data locally before transmitting token response data to the token library, and processing physiological data uses a computer as a tool and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper while transmitting token response data is sending and receiving data across a network per specification figures 1, 9 network 112 and figure 70 network 1528 and also paragraphs 0125 and 0286, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II.
Claim 4 recites wherein the response decomposition module is configured to: separate token instances into background tokens and tokens of interest based on attention levels, and separating token instances into types uses a computer as a tool and is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; predict an expected response to the background tokens, and predicting an expected response is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; and attribute a difference between the measurement and the expected response to the tokens of interest, and attributing a difference between a measurement and an expected response is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claim 5 recites wherein the token library comprises token response profiles from a first experience domain, and storing token response profiles is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II, and wherein the system is configured to use the token response profiles to predict affective responses in a second experience domain different from the first experience domain, and predicting affective responses is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Quy (US 8,700,009) teaches devices for determining emotion-related data from subjects in everyday scenarios, does not teach token instances of the experiences or determining a user’s attention level during the experiences or computing token response values using attention levels (column 1 lines 38-61, columns 8-9 lines 48-18 figure 5).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/15/26
Prosecution Insights