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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation in claims 1 and 17-18 of “the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user” is directed to new matter because it is not supported by applicant’s originally filed disclosure (claims, specification, drawings filed 01/02/2019). Applicant’s originally filed specification discloses: “providing a task refers to requesting the user to perform some activities (for example, a movement, utterance, and the like)”. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the “the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user” and therefore the recited limitation is directed to new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation in claims 1 and 17-18 of “” is indefinite because applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not define what is considered “a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user”. Applicant’s originally filed specification discloses: “providing a task refers to requesting the user to perform some activities (for example, a movement, utterance, and the like)”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartseev (20150186612) in view of Giovanniello (9251713).
Regarding claim 1, Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing system, comprising: an acquisition unit configured to: acquire, at a first time, first user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041); and acquire, at a second time, second user-related information associated with the user, wherein the second time is subsequent to the first time (Para. 0041); a learning unit configured to: learn a first state of the user based on the first user-related information (Para. 0041); and learn a second state of the user based on the second user-related information (Para. 0041); and an output control unit configured to: compare the first state of the user and the second state of the user (Para. 0062); determine a degree of progress to abnormality of the user based on the comparison of the first state and the second state (Para. 0041); detect a state of the user as a progress to an abnormal state from the first state based on the degree of the progress to abnormality being greater than or equal to a specific level (Para. 0041, 0061, 0063); and provide a task (Para. 0043) to suppress the progress to the abnormal state (Para. 0043-0045, 0084).
Gartseev does not teach provide a task to the user to suppress the progress to the abnormal state, the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user, and the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user.
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) teaches provide a task to the user to suppress the progress to the abnormal state (Col. 18, Lines 46-56), wherein the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user, and wherein the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gartseev with provide a task to the user to suppress the progress to the abnormal state as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to complete for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the output control unit is further configured to: compare a chronological change in a first feature quantity and a chronological change in a second feature quantity, wherein the first feature quantity is calculated based on the first user-related information, and the second feature quantity is calculated based on the second user-related information; and detect the abnormal state based on the comparison of the chronological change in the first feature quantity and the chronological change in the second feature quantity. (Para. 0084, 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the output control unit is further configured to detect the abnormal state based on a qualitative change of the user (Para. 0084, 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the learning unit is further configured to learn learns the first state associated with an exercise of the user (Para. 0075), and the output control unit is further configured to: detect the abnormal state as a degree of progress of a decline in physical fitness of the user based on the first state associated with exercise of the user, and provide the task to suppress the degree of the progress of the decline in the physical fitness (Para. 0075, 0084).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the output control unit is further configured to control a load of the task based on a degree of the progress (Para. 0044-0045, 0084).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the output control unit is further configured to control an interval between the first time and the second time based on a degree of the progress to the abnormal state (Para. 0068, 0074, 0077).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the output control unit is further configured to control a provision frequency of the task based on a degree of the progress to abnormality (Para. 0084, 0086).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing system comprising an acquisition unit configured to acquire first user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041).
The modified Gartseev does not teach the task corresponds to a first action with a first load, and the first load is heavier than a second load of a second action that the user performs.
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) teaches the task corresponds to a first action with a first load, and the first load is heavier than a second load of a second action that the user performs (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Gartseev with the first load is heavier than a second load of a second action that the user performs as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to follow in a selected order for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress or lack of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 18, Lines 46-56).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing system comprising an acquisition unit configured to acquire first user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041).
The modified Gartseev does not teach the task corresponds to a first moving path with a first exercise load, wherein the first exercise load is heavier than a second exercise load of a second moving path that the user uses.
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) the task corresponds to a first moving path with a first exercise load, wherein the first exercise load is heavier than a second exercise load of a second moving path that the user uses (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Gartseev with the first exercise load is heavier than a second exercise load of a second moving path that the user uses as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to follow in a selected order for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress or lack of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 18, Lines 46-56).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches a communication unit, wherein the output control unit is further configured to control the communication unit to transmit information associated with a fulfillment status of the provided task by the user to a third party (Para. 0043).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches a communication unit, wherein the output control unit is further configured to control the communication unit to transmit information associated with a fulfillment status of the provided task by the user to a third party (Para. 0043a).
Regarding claim 17, Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Para. 0095) having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: acquiring, at a first time, first user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041); and acquiring, at a second time, second user-related information associated with the user (Para. 0041), wherein the second time is subsequent to the first time; learning a first state of the user based on the first user-related information (Para. 0041); learning a second state of the user based on the second user-related information (Para. 0041); comparing the first state of the user and the second state of the user (Para. 0062); determining a degree of progress to abnormality of the user based on the comparison of the first state and the second state (Para. 0041); detecting a state of the user as progress to an abnormal state from the first state based on the degree of the progress to abnormality being greater than or equal to a specific level (Para. 0041, 0061, 0063); and providing a task for suppressing the progress to the abnormal state (Para. 0084), wherein the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user (Para. 0043-0045).
Gartseev does not teach the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user.
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) teaches the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gartseev with the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to complete for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 18, Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing method comprising: acquiring, at a first time, first user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041); and acquiring, at a second time, second user-related information associated with the user (Para. 0041), wherein the second time is subsequent to the first time; learning a first state of the user based on the first user-related information (Para. 0041); learning a second state of the user based on the second user-related information (Para. 0041); comparing the first state of the user and the second state of the user (Para. 0062); determining a degree of progress to abnormality of the user based on the comparison of the first state and the second state (Para. 0041, 0061-0062); detecting a state of the user as progress to an abnormal state from the first state based on the degree of the progress to abnormality being greater than or equal to a specific level (Para. 0041, 0061, 0063); and providing a task for suppressing the progress to the abnormal state (Para. 0084), wherein the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user (Para. 0043-0045).
Gartseev does not teach the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user.
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) teaches the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gartseev with the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to complete for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartseev in view of Giovanniello, further in view of Jung (20080242947).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches the learning unit is further configured to learn the first state associated with a voice of the user (Para. 0040).
The modified Gartseev does not teach the output control unit is further configured to: detect the abnormal state as a degree of progress of a decline in a memory of the user based on the first
Jung (Figures 1-30) teaches the output control unit is further configured to: detect the abnormal state as a degree of progress of a decline in a memory of the user based on the first
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Gartseev with detecting the abnormal state as a degree of progress of a decline in a memory of the user based on the first.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartseev in view of Giovanniello, further in view of Kothuri (20160042648).
Regarding claim 14, Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing system, comprising: an output control unit configured to; compare the first state of the user and the second state of the user (Para. 0062).
Gartseev does not teach the output control unit is further configured to control a virtual organism which is cared by the user to provide the task for the user.
Kothuri (Figures 1-5) teaches the output control unit is further configured to control a virtual organism which is cared by the user to provide the task for the user (Para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gartseev with the output control unit is further configured to control a virtual organism which is cared by the user to provide the task for the user as taught by Kothuri as a means of using a virtual pet to aid in therapies, mood disorders, understanding, change in care or disorders, diseases and conditions that affect a user's emotional capability (Kothuri: Para. 0021).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartseev in view of Kothuri (20160042648) and Giovanniello (9251713).
Regarding claim 19, Gartseev (Figures 1-11) teaches an information processing system, comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire user-related information associated with a user (Para. 0041); a learning unit configured to learn a state of the user based on the user-related information (Para. 0041); and an output control unit configured to: detect a state of the user as an abnormal state based on a correspondence between the acquired user-related information and the learned state (Para. 0041, 0062, 0084), wherein the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the detected abnormal state of the user (Para. 0043-0045).
Gartseev does not teach controlling a virtual organism, cared by the user, to provide a task for the user to suppress the detected abnormal state, and the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user.
Kothuri (Figures 1-5) teaches controlling a virtual organism, cared by the user, to provide a task for the user to suppress the detected abnormal state (Para. 0021).
Giovanniello (Figures 1-17) teaches the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user (Col. 18, Lines 46-56; Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gartseev with controlling a virtual organism to provide a task for the user to suppress the detected abnormal state as taught by Kothuri as a means of using a virtual pet to aid in therapies, mood disorders, understanding, change in care or disorders, diseases and conditions that affect a user's emotional capability (Kothuri: Para. 0021), and to provide Gartseev with the task is presented as a normal activity that includes an element of fun for the user as taught by Giovanniello as a means of providing a user with steps to complete for a given task so as to inform medical professionals and/or family members of progress of the user completing the tasks (Giovanniello: Col. 19, Lines 52-67; Col. 20, Lines 1-20)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record (Gartseev (20150186612), Jung (20080242947), Kothuri (20160042648)) does not teach the recitation in claim 7 of “the learning unit is further configured to learn the first state based on a an interaction between a virtual organism who is taken care by the user and the user, and the output control unit is further configured to: detect the abnormal state as a degree of progress of a decline in a memory of the user based on the learned first state based on the interaction between the virtual organism that the user cares for and the user, and provide the task to suppress the degree of the progress of the decline in the memory of the user”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Giovanniello does not teach the recitation in claims 1 of “the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user”, this is not found persuasive because Giovanniello (Col. 17, Lines 17-26) discloses: “during diagnosis, treatment and general care, the patient may be mentally impaired and need assistance”. Giovanniello (Col. 19, Lines 65-67 and Col. 20, Lines 1-4) discloses: “next, in step 1429 the system can post or report the information on the process or task as well as the score. The score can be stored in a database such as in a database in database server 130. This information including a listing of the right and wrong answers can be sent to a medical professional such as a neurologist or a rehabilitation therapist who is working with the user/patient”. It is noted that Giovanniello discloses a patient that may be mentally impaired so “the task does not indicate to the user that the task is associated with suppression of the progress to the abnormal state of the user” as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights