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 .
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Application No. 19/474,385 filed on 10/10/2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claims 1-9 have been rejected as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 and 12/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“an information acquisition unit” in independent Claim 1, 5 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “unit” and functional language “acquire the psychological reflection information of a user” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“an estimation unit” in independent Claim 1 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “unit” and functional language “estimate the psychological state of the user by inputting the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit into the psychological- state estimation model;” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“a determination unit” in independent Claim 1 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “unit” and functional language “determine whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“a label creation unit” in independent Claim 1 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “unit” and functional language “create the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user based on the user's answer to a test presented to the user when the determination unit determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
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.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim system for determining glucose patterns.
The limitations of
a psychological-state estimation […] trained using psychological reflection information and a correct label indicating a psychological state corresponding to the psychological reflection information as learning data;
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire the psychological reflection information of a user;
an estimation unit configured to estimate the psychological state of the user by inputting the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit into the psychological- state estimation […];
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit;
a label creation unit configured to create the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user based on the user's answer to a test presented to the user when the determination unit determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label; and
a data storage unit configured to store the psychological reflection information of the user and the correct label of the user as a data set.
, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. For example, this claim encompasses a person acquiring information of a user, estimate a state, determine whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label to the information, create the correct label based on user answer to a test presented and store the information and the label in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (claim 1) a device that implements the identified abstract idea. The device is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of storing data and automation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional element of using a trained model to estimate the psychological state. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the trained model to estimate a state was found to represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim 2 merely describes the data stored in a storage unit. Claim 3 merely describes the determination based on a distribution of data. Claim 4 merely describes the correct label can be classified as one of a plurality of categories and determine it is necessary to acquire a correct label based on proportion of category among pluralities of categories. Claim 5 merely describes acquiring user attributes and calculates a proportion of each attribute and determine it is necessary to acquire a correct label when proportion of attribute of user is less than or equal to a proportion. Claim 6 merely describes categories of state and determining it is necessary to acquire a correct label. Claim 7 merely describes determination based on history. Claim 8 merely describes determination based on biological information. Claim 9 merely describes determination based on time elapsed.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eleftheriou (US 20200075039)
CLAIM 1
Eleftheriou teaches A data acquisition device comprising: (Eleftheriou para 13 teaches a method can be executed by a companion application executing on a mobile device in cooperation with a wearable device worn by a user and a remote computer system)
a psychological-state estimation model trained using psychological reflection information and a correct label indicating a psychological state corresponding to the psychological reflection information as learning data; (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches labeling the first timeseries of biosignal data according to the first timeseries of emotion markers to generate a first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data in Block S150; generating an emotion model linking biosignals to emotion markers for the user based on the first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data)
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire the psychological reflection information of a user; (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches recording a first timeseries of biosignal data via a set of sensors integrated into a wearable device worn by the user )
an estimation unit configured to estimate the psychological state of the user by inputting the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit into the psychological- state estimation model; (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches detecting a second instance of the first target emotion exhibited by the user based on the second timeseries of biosignal data and the emotion mode)
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit; (Eleftheriou para 14 teaches calibrating the existing generic emotion model to align with correlations between physiological biosignal data and other target emotions, such as during a single (e.g., ten minute) setup process or during intermittent setup periods during the user's first day or week wearing the wearable device.)
a label creation unit configured to create the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user based on the user's answer to a test presented to the user when the determination unit determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label; and (Eleftheriou para 18 teaches prompt the user to periodically confirm instances of target emotions; aggregate physiological biosignal data occurring around these manual emotion labels; and then (re)calibrate her emotion model based on these paired manual emotion labels and physiological biosignal data such that the user's emotion model continues to represent an accurate map from physiological biosignal data to emotion markers even as the user's body and environment change over time )
a data storage unit configured to store the psychological reflection information of the user and the correct label of the user as a data set. (Eleftheriou para 22 teaches storing physical biosignal data from the calibration session and the target emotion. Para 26 teaches store labeled biosignal data to user profile. )
CLAIM 2
Eleftheriou teaches wherein the psychological-state estimation model is updated using the data stored in the data storage unit as the learning data. (Eleftheriou para 18 teaches prompt the user to periodically confirm instances of target emotions; aggregate physiological biosignal data occurring around these manual emotion labels; and then (re)calibrate her emotion model based on these paired manual emotion labels and physiological biosignal data such that the user's emotion model continues to represent an accurate map from physiological biosignal data to emotion markers even as the user's body and environment change over time )
CLAIM 3
Eleftheriou teaches wherein the determination unit determines whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label based on a distribution of the data stored in the data storage unit. (Eleftheriou para 21 teaches calibration based on expected ranges of biosignal data for a user to enable the system to more quickly generate an emotion model.)
CLAIM 4
Eleftheriou teaches wherein the correct label constituting the learning data can be classified as one of a plurality of categories, and (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches labeling the first timeseries of biosignal data according to the first timeseries of emotion markers to generate a first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data in Block S150; generating an emotion model linking biosignals to emotion markers for the user based on the first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data)
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user, if a proportion of a specific category among the plurality of categories in the data stored in the data storage unit is less than or equal to a predetermined value, and (Eleftheriou para 22 teaches prompting a user to select a secondary target emotion that corresponds to biosignal data for a secondary target emotion with less pronounced ranges of biosignal data compared to primary emotions with more pronounced ranges of biosignal data )
when the psychological state of the user, estimated by inputting the psychological reflection information of the user into the psychological- state estimation model, corresponds to the specific category. (Eleftheriou para 18 teaches prompt the user to periodically confirm instances of target emotions; aggregate physiological biosignal data occurring around these manual emotion labels; and then (re)calibrate her emotion model based on these paired manual emotion labels and physiological biosignal data such that the user's emotion model continues to represent an accurate map from physiological biosignal data to emotion markers even as the user's body and environment change over time )
CLAIM 5
Eleftheriou teaches wherein the information acquisition unit acquires an attribute of the user, wherein the data storage unit stores the attribute together with the data, and (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches labeling the first timeseries of biosignal data according to the first timeseries of emotion markers to generate a first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data in Block S150; generating an emotion model linking biosignals to emotion markers for the user based on the first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data)
wherein the determination unit calculates a proportion of each attribute of the data stored in the data storage unit and determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user when the proportion of the attribute of the user acquired by the information acquisition unit is less than or equal to a predetermined proportion. (Eleftheriou para 22 teaches prompting a user to select a secondary target emotion that corresponds to biosignal data for a secondary target emotion with less pronounced ranges of biosignal data compared to primary emotions with more pronounced ranges of biosignal data )
CLAIM 6
Eleftheriou teaches The data acquisition device according to claim 1 wherein the estimation unit classifies the psychological state of the user as one of first and second categories, and (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches labeling the first timeseries of biosignal data according to the first timeseries of emotion markers to generate a first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data in Block S150; generating an emotion model linking biosignals to emotion markers for the user based on the first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data. Para 15 teaches detecting certain emotions such as anger, sadness, happiness. Eleftheriou para 74 teaches classifying a target emotion with confidence threshold such as 60%+)
wherein the determination unit classifies the state of the user as one of a third category that is broader than the first category and including the first category and a fourth category obtained by subtracting the third category from the second category and (Eleftheriou para 55 teaches confidence scores including a minimum to add to the model. Eleftheriou para 74 teaches classifying a target emotion with confidence threshold such as 60%+ and increasing the confidence threshold to 70%. Examiner notes 60% threshold is broader than 70% and a fourth category obtained by subtracting the third category would be below 60%.)
determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user when the state of the user is classified as the third category. (Eleftheriou para 77 teaches detecting a target emotion and prompting the user to choose an emotion type and the model can update the emotion model to label the biosignal data as the emotion type entered by the user. )
CLAIM 7
Eleftheriou teaches wherein the estimation unit stores the psychological state estimated in the past for each user, and (Eleftheriou para 18 teaches prompting a user to confirm target emotions periodically. para 24 teaches tracking instances of target emotions for a period of time)
wherein the determination unit determines whether or not it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the acquired psychological reflection information of the user based on a history of the psychological state of the user stored by the estimation unit. (Eleftheriou Para 18 teaches periodically confirm instances of target emotions and recalibrate emotion model based on manual label during different timescales such as working, seasons, life stages, pregnancy, etc.)
CLAIM 8
The data acquisition device according to The data acquisition device according to wherein the information acquisition unit acquires biological information of the user as the psychological reflection information, and (Eleftheriou para 12 teaches labeling the first timeseries of biosignal data according to the first timeseries of emotion markers to generate a first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data in Block S150; generating an emotion model linking biosignals to emotion markers for the user based on the first emotion-labeled timeseries of biosignal data)
wherein the determination unit evaluates a quality of the biological information of the user and determines that it is not necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user when the quality of the biological information of the user is below a predetermined criterion. (Eleftheriou para 44 teaches biosignal above a minimum threshold triggering extracting the user specific emotion markers for the voice recording and biosignal data. Examiner notes below the threshold would not result in this occurring)
CLAIM 9
The data acquisition device according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines that it is necessary to acquire the correct label corresponding to the psychological reflection information of the user when a predetermined time has elapsed from acquisition of the user's previous answer to the test when the psychological reflection information of the user has been acquired. (Eleftheriou Para 18 teaches periodically confirming instances of target emotions and recalibrating the emotion model based on manual labels during different timescales such on short time scales (e.g., during different activities, such as working, commuting, socializing, relaxing, etc.); on intermediate time scales (e.g., during different seasons, holidays, etc.); and on longer time scales (e.g., throughout the user's different life stages, such as adolescence, pregnancy, retirement, etc)
Prior Art Made of Record and Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180246846 Takimoto
Abstract teaches a class determination unit configured to determine a class to which learning data belongs
McKean, Active Learning 101: A Complete Guide to Higher Quality Data (Part 1), March 3, 2022
Intro pg. 2 teaches “The human-in-the-loop component of data labeling for machine learning algorithms gives way to fatigue and error, which is why traditional supervised learning has its drawbacks. When active learning is used, a human merely steps in to guide the data to ideal performance, meaning that less data is required. As this process is repeated, your model’s performance is improved drastically over time. Through active learning, your model is taught to understand a specified outcome or behavior that is unwavering and certain. For ML practitioners looking to build a model with specific, repeated behavior, then active learning is a preferred method.”
KNIME, Labeling with Active Learning, October 17, 2019
Section “What is active learning?” teaches active learning as a procedure to manually label a subset of available data and infer remaining labels automatically. Step c -data sampling teaches uncertainty sampling.
Tazarv, Active Reinforcement Learning for Personalized Stress Monitoring in Everyday Settings, April 28, 2023
Abstract teaches “a novel context-aware active learning strategy capable of jointly maximizing the meaningfulness of the signal samples we request the user to label and the response rate”
Section 6.2 teaches uncertainty factor and decision boundary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KYLE TAPIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1662. The examiner can normally be reached 830 - 530.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights