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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 04/30/25.
Claims 1, 18, 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 10, 20 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/29/2020. A certified copy of the JP2020-181671 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 was received on 11/09/2021. Accordingly, a priority date of 10/29/2020 corresponding to the filing date of JP2020-181671 has been given to this application.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/25 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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, 3-9, 11-19 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.
Claims 1, 17-19 are rejected for lack of adequate written description. The claims recite functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the invention.
MPEP 2161.01(I): When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. [...] If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2161.01- § 2163.07(b). […]
Claim 1 contains recitation of “two of a degree of stress, a degree of brain fatigue, or a degree of muscle fatigue determined based on a result of a measurement of biometric information of a user”; Claim 17 contains recitation of “determine a degree of stress, a degree of brain fatigue, or a degree of muscle fatigue of the user based on a measurement result of the biometric information”; and Claims 18-19 contain recitation of “a degree of stress, a degree of brain fatigue, or a degree of muscle fatigue computed based on a result of a measurement of biometric information of a user”.
Claims 1, 18-19 contain recitation of “the state-indicating graphics are calculated based on the biometric information of the user from the biometric sensor, which includes at least one of a heartbeat and a pulse of the user, the degree of stress calculated from at least the degree of brain fatigue, and the degree of muscle fatigue of this user that is based on an intensity of an action of the autonomic nervous system of the user”.
Claims 1, 18-19 contain recitation of “update the criterion of the degree of stress and the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue monthly or yearly based on a lifestyle and a biorhythm of the user”.
The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how the claimed system uses a measurement result of biometric information to determine/compute the user’s degree of stress, degree of brain fatigue, or degree of muscle fatigue, or how the state-indicating graphics are calculated based on biometric information of the user from the biometric sensor, which includes at least one of a heart beat and pulse of the user, the degree of stress calculated from at least the degree of brain fatigue and the degree of physical fatigue of the user that is based on an intensity of an action of the autonomic nervous system of the user. Applicant has provided no disclosure of how the claimed system updates the criterion of the degree of stress and the degree of brain/muscle fatigue monthly or yearly based on a lifestyle and a biorhythm of the user. Any analysis and subsequent determination could potentially read on the as-claimed invention.
The specification states, at para. [0006] “Moreover, the state-indicating graphics indicate a mental and physical state computed based on a result of measurement of biometric information of a user, and represent levels of the mental and physical state in a distinguishable manner by a change in the respective state-indicating graphic”; paras. [0007]-[0009] and [0034]-[0035] contain similar disclosure, which merely reiterate the claim language. Para. [0036] discloses “The mental and physical state computation device 35 computes the mental and physical state based on the result of measurement of the user's biometric information. For example, the computation device 35 computes a state of the user's autonomic nervous system based on the user's biometric information, such as heartbeat and a pulse, computes a degree of brain fatigue and/or a degree of physical fatigue based on an intensity of an action of the user's autonomic nervous system, and computes a degree of stress based on balance between the user's sympathetic nervous system and parasympathetic nervous system.” However, the specification does not provide further disclosure of how any of the biometric information, e.g., heart rate and pulse, are used to compute a degree of stress, a degree of brain fatigue, or a degree of muscle fatigue; how an intensity of an action of the user’s autonomic nervous system is used to compute a degree of brain fatigue or physical fatigue; how a degree of brain fatigue and degree of physical fatigue are used to calculate a degree of stress. Applicant has not provided disclosure of how the claimed invention specifically uses biometric information measurements to arrive at a particular degree of stress, degree of brain fatigue, or degree of muscle fatigue, or how a degree of stress is calculated from at least a degree of brain fatigue and degree of physical fatigue; no calculations, formulas, standards, etc. are provided. For example, how does a pulse of 55 bpm versus a pulse of 115 bpm (biometric information) translate into a degree of stress to be represented in a graphic, or how is an intensity of an action of the autonomic nervous system translated into “a degree of brain fatigue” or “a degree of physical stress”. The specification states, at para. [0078], “Further, the display-processing unit 28 can be configured for updating the criterion/criteria of the mental and physical state. The physical and mental state fluctuates during a month or during a year depending on the user's lifestyle. The feature in which the criterion/criteria of the mental and physical state can be updated allows the user to correctly analyze his/her mental and physical state in detail on a time-by-time basis”, and at para. [0092], “As described above, the mental and physical state display device 20 of the present embodiment, which displays the user's mental and physical state in the form of the state-indicating graphics A1, A2 in the calendar or schedule format, allows the user to intuitively grasp fluctuation of his/her mental and physical state that has taken place during a month or a week due to the user's lifestyle and biorhythm. This feature enables the user to perform behavior modification and to improve performance”. The specification does not appear to specifically disclose how Applicant is using lifestyle and biorhythm to update the criterion of the degree of stress and the degree of brain/muscle fatigue, nor does the specification appear to disclose what variables or data make up “lifestyle” and “biorhythm” information; it is not disclosed what data Applicant is using to update the criterion of degree of stress/fatigue or how different factors related to lifestyle/biorhythm are used to update the criterion in any particular way.
The specification provides inadequate disclosure for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to conclude that the Applicant had possession of the claimed algorithms. No algorithms are presented for the aforementioned limitations.
The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to perform any form of analysis and determination (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the analysis and/or determination is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention. In this case, the Applicant's description of analysis and determination claims any and all types of analysis and determination evidencing that the Applicant did not have possession of their invention at the time of filing.
Claims 3-9, 11-17 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are subsequently rejected.
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, 3-9, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-17 are drawn to a machine, Claim 18 is drawn to a method, Claim 19 is are drawn to a computer-readable storage medium (understood to be non-transitory per specification [0086]), all of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
displaying state-indicating graphics in chronological order in at least one of a monthly calendar format, a weekly calendar format, and a daily schedule format, with the state-indicating graphics indicating two of a degree of stress, a degree of brain fatigue, or a degree of muscle fatigue determined based on a result of a measurement of biometric information of a user from a biometric sensor, and representing levels of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue or the degree of muscle fatigue in a distinguishable manner by a change in the respective state-indicating graphic (Examiner notes that “from a biometric sensor” is included in the scope of abstract idea as it is merely descriptive of the type of data being analyzed)
calculating the state-indicating graphics based on the biometric information of the user from the biometric sensor, which includes at least one of a heartbeat and a pulse of the user, the degree of stress calculated from at least the degree of brain fatigue and the degree of muscle fatigue of this user that is based on an intensity of an action of the autonomic nervous system of the user;
displaying at least one of the state-indicating graphics that corresponds to a criterion of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue as a criterial state-indicating graphic that is distinguishable from a remainder of the state-indicating graphics, with the criterion being set on a user-to-user basis; and
adjusting whole levels of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue according to the criterion of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue set on the user-to-user basis,
displaying the state-indicating graphics representing the adjusted levels of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue.
updating the criterion of the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue, or the degree of muscle fatigue monthly or yearly based on a lifestyle and a biorhythm of the user.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Using biometric measurements of a user to perform calculations to determine a user’s degree of stress, brain fatigue and muscle fatigue to generate graphics representative of the degrees of stress/fatigue for presentation in a chronological format, and subsequently updating the degree of stress/fatigue monthly or yearly are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider, counselor, or the user themself.
Independent claims 18, 19 recite similar limitations and also recites an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claims 1, 18-19 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a display unit as implementing the step of displaying information (Claim 1)
a display-processing unit as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 1)
a computer-readable storage medium constructed to store a program, which, when executed by a processor of a computer as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 19)
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements (display, display-processing unit, a computer-readable storage medium constructed to store a program, which, when executed by a processor of a computer) at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools. Para. [0034] discloses the display device may be “information processing devices” such as a smartphone, PC, tablet, which are all understood to be general purpose computing devices operating in their ordinary capacities. Para. [0045] discloses the display unit may be a liquid crystal display on an organic EL display. Para. [0086] discloses the display processing unit includes an arithmetic processor such as a central processing unit, digital signal processor or field-programmable gate array. Para. [0086] discloses the computer readable storage medium may be a compact disc CD-ROM or DVD. Para. [0036] discloses that the computation device may be a “known fatigue-stress measurement device”. Para. [0035] discloses that examples of the host device include information processing devices such as a tablet or PC.
B. Generally Linking a Judicial Exception to a Field of Use/Technological Environment: MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 1, 18, 19 additionally recite “the biometric sensor including at least one of a heart rate meter, an electrocardiograph, a pulse rate meter, a pulse wave meter, a sphygmomanometer, and a thermometer”. This element of a specific type of biometric sensor only amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The above elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 18 and 19 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Generally Linking a Judicial Exception to a Field of Use/Technological Environment: MPEP 2106.05(h)
Likewise, as explained above, the recitation of “the biometric sensor including at least one of a heart rate meter, an electrocardiograph, a pulse rate meter, a pulse wave at paras. meter, a sphygmomanometer, and a thermometer” in Claims 1, 18 and 19 only amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This element has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the healthcare field. As evidenced by the prior art of record, using a biometric sensor including at least one of a heart rate meter, an electrocardiograph, a pulse rate meter, a pulse wave at paras. meter, a sphygmomanometer, and a thermometer is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element in the field of computerized healthcare, particularly with respect to using the collected data for determining a stress state/degree of an individual (see US Publication 20140107493 A1 paras. [0051]-[0052]; US Publication 20170020444 A1 paras. [0023], [0083]; US Publication 20180174430 A1, paras. [0011], [0041]). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claims 3-9, 11-17 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claims and/or are certain methods of organizing human activity. Additional elements recited by claims 3-9, 11-17 are consistent with those discussed above with respect to the independent claims (e.g., a display processing device) and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 also recites a storage unit configured to store schedule information of the user, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and constitutes well-understood, routine and conventional activity given that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). This is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 additionally recites an operation unit as implementing the step of receiving an input. Per specification para. [0044], which discloses the operation unit as a unit operable by a user which includes “for example, a keyboard having physical operation buttons, a mouse, or a touch panel having virtual operation buttons”, this element is being interpreted as a general purpose computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Claim 6 additionally recites a storage unit configured to store action information, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and constitutes well-understood, routine and conventional activity given that it amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 additionally recites a computation device as implementing the step of determining the degree of stress, the degree of brain fatigue or the degree of muscle fatigue of the user based on a measurement result of the biometric information, which amounts to mere instructions implement the abstract idea using computing elements as tools. Claim 17 additionally recites a sensor configured to measure biometric information of a user, which amounts to mere data gathering and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, and a host device to communicate with the mental and physical state display device, which amounts to mere data gathering and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding “a sensor configured to measure biometric information of a user”: This element has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As evidenced by the prior art of record, using a sensor to measure biometric information of a user was well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computerized healthcare at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Haguri reference at page 4, paras. 2 and 8; see Wegerif at [0016], [0022]; see Moore reference at para. [0136]. Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding “a host device to communicate with the mental and physical state display device”, this only amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-17 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of independent claims above. As discussed above with respect to independent claims and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-17 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
Please note: When referencing page numbers of Applicant’s response, references are to page numbers as printed.
35 USC 112(a) Rejections
Regarding the 112(a) rejections of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. MPEP 2106.01(I) states, regarding 112(a) written description rejections:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
and
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.
As explained above in 112(a) section above and in prior office actions, Applicant has not provided evidence of an algorithm in the instant specification for how they are performing the claimed functions. As stated in the MPEP 2161.01(I) citation above, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed functions because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed functions to satisfy the written description requirement.
Regarding reference to Japanese unpublished Application ‘388, Applicant appears to be arguing an enablement rejection (rather than a written description rejection), of which the Office would not make unless it can show that it would require undue experimentation to arrive at the claimed invention. To show undue experimentation, the various Wands factors are considered, of which “the state of the prior art” is a factor; the cited JP ‘388 application may be relevant to the state of the prior art (See MPEP 2164.01(a) regarding enablement rejections). However, Examiner has made a 112(a) written description rejection and cited to the appropriate MPEP section in previous correspondence. The issue at hand is not whether a person of skill in the art could program a computer to perform the claimed functions, but lack of disclosure of how Applicant specifically is accomplishing the steps. Applicant has not provided citations to, nor can Examiner find, evidence in the specification that includes algorithms for how Applicant specifically is performing the claimed functions detailed in the 112(a) section above.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the rejections of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 under 35 USC 112(a) are maintained.
35 USC 112(b) Rejections
The rejections of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 under USC 35 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 18, 19.
35 USC 101 Rejections
Regarding Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19, Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding remarks directed to integration of a judicial exception into a practical application beginning at page 27, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. Examiner submits that in Core Wireless, the specification confirmed that the claims disclosed an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens, by teaching that prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, and disclosed the particular problems associated with prior art interfaces to which the claimed invention provided an improvement. By providing improved user interfaces that allowed quicker access to applications and stored data within an electronic device, the functionality of the electronic device was physically improved. Applicant has not cited to analogous support in the instant specification, nor can Examiner find, evidence of how the claimed invention provides an improvement over prior art systems.
Please see page 9 of CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., 2016-2684:
The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index, as argued by LG on appeal. Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ’476 patent requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.
Applicant has not cited to, nor can Examiner find, evidence of a similar technological improvement in the instant specification as originally filed. The instant claims merely recite the computing elements as tools to implement the steps of the abstract idea. The claimed invention may present an improvement to the abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved method of determining a degree of stress, brain fatigue or muscle fatigue of a user based on biometric information, adjusting data on a user to user basis, and presenting it graphically via a calendar to make it easier for the user to understand their stress/fatigue data), but it is not a technological improvement per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Any improvements appear to be directed to improving the capability of the user to better understand their stress/fatigue data (paras. [0032], [0063]). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks at page 28 that claim features (Emphasis Examiner) of the amended independent claims are “clearly not well understood, routine and conventional”, Examiner submits that the Berkheimer analysis refers to additional elements, not to “features” of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Regarding limitations within the scope of the abstract idea, whether or not the features of the abstract idea are well-understood, routine and conventional is irrelevant. Regarding limitations identified as generally linking, Examiner submits that it was well understood, routine and conventional at the time the invention was effectively filed to use a biometric sensor to collect physiological data, in which the data is ultimately used to determine a stress/autonomic nervous system state of the user. Examiner has provided Berkheimer evidence; see above 101 analysis section for reference citations. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding remarks directed to Example 42 beginning at bottom of page 28, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.04(d) states that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention solves a described technological problem. Example 42 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 42 describes a technical problem (i.e., a problem caused by the technology): the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information. The claimed invention then solved this problem (a technical solution) by converting data to a standardized format, providing a message and access to updated real-time data that has been converted to a standardized format, thus integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Unlike Example 42 and/or the technical solution to a technical problem inquiry, Applicant has not identified, nor can the Examiner locate any technical problem that the claimed invention is solving. Rather, the instant invention appears to seek to improve the capability of the user to better understand their mental/physical state (see instant specification, para. [0005], “Therefore, it is an object of the exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure to provide a mental and physical state display device, a mental and physical state display system, a mental and physical state display method, a program, and a storage medium that enable a user to intuitively grasp his/her mental and physical state substantially in agreement with his/her individual perception”). Any purported improvements may be improvements to the abstract idea (e.g., an improved method of determining and graphically outputting a user’s degree of stress, brain and/or muscle fatigue for display that is normalized to the user), but are not technological improvements.
Regarding integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, please see 2106.04(d)(II) which states:
“The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h)”,
And, see MPEP 2106.05(a) which states:
“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Applicant has not provided, nor can Examiner find evidence of, how any of the additional elements identified above in main 101 analysis section are providing an improvement over prior art systems. The additional elements identified above are understood to be computing components functioning in their normal operating capacity, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding remarks at page 30 comparing instant application claim to Example 42, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claim is analogous. Examiner submits that the conversion of data to a “standard format” in Example 42 is not akin to the steps of adjusting whole levels of stress, brain fatigue or muscle fatigue on a user to user basis. Example 42 pertains to conversion of electronic data from a non-standardized format of a particular provider’s hardware/software platform to a standardized format; this conversion step solves the problem disclosed in the background section of Example 42 (the technological implementation of software formats made it difficult to share updated health information). Examiner submits that unlike Example 42, the step of “adjusting whole levels” of the degree of stress, brain fatigue or muscle fatigue on a user to user basis is within the scope of the abstract idea. Examiner submits that adjusting whole levels of stress, brain fatigue or muscle fatigue according to a criterion of the degree of stress, brain fatigue or muscle fatigue does not inherently require a computer; this step encompasses data analysis that could be performed by a person and as such is included in the abstract idea. As such, any improvements provided by this step of “adjusting whole levels…” only constitutes an improvement to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient per MPEP 2106.05(a) to provide a technological improvement.
Regarding the first bullet on page 30, Examiner submits that the actual step of using sensors to gather real time data is outside the scope of the instant claims. Although the displayed information is based on this sensor data, the actual data gathering is outside the scope of the claims. Examiner prospectively notes that should claims be amended such that this data gathering is positively recited, it would likely be extra-solution activity and well-understood, conventional and routine activity.
Regarding the second and third bullets on page 30, these are abstract. Examiner submits that Applicant’s wording choice of displaying information in a “user-friendly format”, such as a calendar or schedule, “allowing users to monitor their health over time” provides further evidence of any purported improvements being to the abstract itself, e.g. improving the capability of the user to better understand their data (by presenting it in a user-friendly format), as explained above. Similarly, the third bullet also encompasses the abstract idea, e.g. adjusting and updating information in real-time based on user specific criteria and lifestyle, and as such, any improvements provided by this step are only improvements to the abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks at bottom of page 30, in which Applicant asserts the claims describe a “specific technological improvement”, please see above remarks pertaining to MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) and 2106.05(a) which addresses this argument. Improvements to “better health management and decision making” fall within the scope of an improvement to the abstract idea itself.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive and the rejections of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-19 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
In the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20160129310A1, teaching on a device for physiological monitoring which collects physiological data, normalizes it to the user, and outputs a score for display
US Publication 20170071537A1, teaching on a method for monitoring a health characteristic of a user based on biological measurements of the user corresponding to predefined user context
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm EST.
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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682