DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 06/16/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
All references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application, US 2022/0287592 A1.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 it appears that “an calculating processor that calculates a deviation of the subject's active state in each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task as an evaluation function while comparing the action phases to a reference action pattern established as a baseline” should read “an calculating processor that calculates a deviation of the subject's active state in each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task as an evaluation function by comparing the action phases to a reference action pattern established as a baseline” to indicate the comparison is how the recited function is being performed rather than a separate task performed alongside the generation of the evaluation function.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
a near infrared detection unit of claims 1 and 9
a far infrared detection unit of claims 1 and 9
a flicker test unit of claims 1 and 9
a movement recognition unit in claim 3
a recognition degree detection unit in claim 4
a flicker test unit in claim 9
a second step in claim 9
a fourth step in claim 9
a sixth step in claim 9
a seventh step in claim 9
a tenth step in claim 9
an eleventh step in claim 9
a twelfth step in claim 9
an eighth step in claim 13
a ninth step in claim 14
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 or particular program described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a near infrared detection unit of claim 1 is described in paragraphs 0064, 0066, 0068-0070 and 0074 as an infrared light source and camera to detect infrared light reflected from the skin. The near infrared detection unit is interpreted as an infrared camera and associated light source and their equivalents for both claims 1 and 9
a far infrared detection unit of claim 1 is described in paragraphs 0096 as an infrared camera to detect infrared light reflected from the skin. The far infrared detection unit is interpreted as an infrared camera and its equivalents for both claims 1 and 9
a flicker test is described in paragraphs 0122-0123 as utilizing a light source which flickers at a controllable speed to determine the flicker speed at which the subject can detect flickering. A flicker test unit is interpreted as a light source whose flicker frequency is controllable, its associated controller, and their equivalents for both claims 1 and 9.
a second step is described in paragraphs 0127-0130 but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the behavior task dividing unit is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0127-0130 describe the functions of the second step and provide an example of its use but fail to describe the particular steps taken to perform the recited function. In particular, the steps taken to divide the “nursing care work” behavior task into the respective action phases is not described. The specification does not appear to describe how the active state data is processed to segment it into the various action phases of a behavior task
a fourth step is described in paragraphs 0131-0133 but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of the processor. As such the fourth step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the Bayesian clustering processor. Paragraphs 0131-0133 describe the function of the fourth step but does not describe the particular method used to perform the function. In particular, paragraphs 0131-0133 indicate that the step performs cluster analysis using nonparametric Bayesian method using Dirichlet process mixture distribution on a plurality of parameters indicated with multiple values such as attributes, sex, age, and a skill level of the subject but the specification does not appear to describe how these parameters are acquired. The specification does not appear to describe how the data gathered by the active state detection unit is processed into the parameters used for clustering.
a sixth step is described in paragraphs 0139-0142 but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the sixth step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0139-0142 describe the function of the sixth step but do not appear to describe the method used to carry out the estimation. In particular, the sixth step uses the evaluation function, or difference between current active state data and standard active state data determined by the evaluation function calculation unit, to determine a transition of a health condition but the specification does not appear to describe how this determination is performed or describe what a “health condition” entails. The specification does not appear to describe the particular manner in which a health condition transition is evaluated using the evaluation function.
a seventh step is described in paragraphs 0143-0144 but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the seventh step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0143-0144 describe the function of the seventh step as using the identified health transition of the sixth step to identify an action phase with an execution efficiency is below a threshold. The specification does not appear to describe the particular method steps to carry out the recited process. The specification does not particularly describe the ”execution efficiency” of a behavior task and how it is evaluated with respect to a health transition.
a tenth step is described in paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0153-0154, and 0158 but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the tenth step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0153-0154, and 0158 describe the tenth step in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the degradation cause is determined from the gathered information or provide an example as to what the output of this step entails.
an eleventh step is described in paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0156-0157, but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the eleventh step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0156-0157 describe that the eleventh step calculates a ratio between the number of subjects with an identified worrying action phase to the total number of subjects performing that action phase. The eleventh step is interpreted as the determination of a ratio between the number of subjects with an identified worrying action phase to the total number of subjects performing that action phase.
a twelfth step is described in paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158, but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of a processor. As such the twelfth step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158 describe the twelfth step in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the processor determines if the behavior task itself has a problem or the order of the action phases has a problem and what that problem is. It would seem that the ratio is used to identify when the determination should take place but does not appear to be related to the determination of if the behavior task or order of action phases has a problem.
a movement recognition unit is described in paragraphs 0116-0120 which indicate that the movement recognition unit is an inertial measurement unit which may take the form of a camera or accelerometer. The movement recognition unit is interpreted as a camera and/or accelerometer and their equivalents.
a recognition degree detection unit is described in paragraphs 0121-0124 which indicate that the recognition degree detection unit which is a light source. The recognition degree detection unit is interpreted as a light source which flickers at adjustable frequencies and its equivalents.
an eighth step is described in paragraphs 0024-0025, 0091, 0137, and 0145-0151, but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of the processor. As such the eight step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158 describe the eight step in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the processor determines if the action phase identified by the seventh step can damage the subject’s health
a nineth step is described in paragraphs 0145-0151, but is not assigned a particular physical structure but is rather a function of the processor. As such the ninth step is interpreted as the particular method steps executed by the processor. Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158 describe the ninth step in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the processor creates advice data for improving the subject’s health condition or what form this advice may take.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a first step of claim 9
a third step of claim 9
a fifth step in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a first step of claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites all of the required structure and acts to carry out the recited function.
a third step of claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites all of the required structure and acts to carry out the recited function.
a fifth step of claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites all of the required acts to carry out the recited function.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 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.
Claims 9 and 13-14 recite the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
a second step in claim 9
a fourth step in claim 9
a sixth step in claim 9
a seventh step in claim 9
a tenth step in claim 9
an eleventh step in claim 9
a twelfth step in claim 9
an eighth step in claim 13
a ninth step in claim 14
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The deficiencies of the specification are described in the above present claim interpretation section for each of the above listed limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “a correlation analysis processor configured to, when a subject executes a specified behavior task, divides the behavior task into units of action phases in chronological order according to a correlation of the active states of the subject on a basis of active state data which is a detection result of the active state detection unit” but it is unclear how the behavior task is being divided into action phases. It is unclear what “a correlation of the active states of the subject on a basis of active state data” is intended to convey. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as dividing a behavior task into action phases based on a correlation of the recorded active state data to predetermined action phases that are associated with certain active state data.
Claim 1 recites “a correlation analysis processor configured to, when a subject executes a specified behavior task, divides the behavior task into units of action phases in chronological order according to a correlation of the active states of the subject on a basis of active state data which is a detection result of the active state detection unit” but it is unclear how the recited “a detection result of the active state detection unit” relates to the various parameters and sensors recited in lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, “a detection result” will be interpreted as a combination of all the recited parameters being detected by the active state detection unit’s various sensors.
Claim 1 recites “a health transition processor configured to estimates a transition of a health condition of the subject with respect to each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task on a basis of the evaluation function calculated by the calculating processor” but it is unclear how the evaluation function is used to estimate a “transition of a health condition” and what such a transition entails. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any different between the recorded and reference action phase data indicating some form of change, or transition, in the user’s health.
Claim 1 recites “a efficiency threshold processor configured with comparative analysis circuits” but it is unclear what relationship is intended to be conveyed between the processor and “circuits” it is unclear what function the circuits carry out or how they relate to the function of the processor. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted as any type of “circuit” in communication with the processor.
Claim 1 recites “a efficiency threshold processor configured with comparative analysis circuits that applies the transition of the subject's health condition which is estimated by the health transition processor configured to identify an action phase of the action phases regarding which execution efficiency of the behavior task by the subject based on the transition of the subject’s health condition is equal to or lower than a specified level, wherein the behavior task evaluation system is applied to each of a plurality of different subjects” but is it unclear what the “execution efficiency” is and how it is “based on the transition of the subject’s health condition”. It is unclear how the execution efficiency is determined in order to be compared to the specified level. For the purposes of this examination, the execution efficiency is interpreted as any metric of the user’s performance of a task.
Claim 1 recites “a multi-input analysis processor configured to: … analyzes a cause of degradation in execution efficiency of the action phase on a basis of the transition of each subject’s health condition in the action phase” It is unclear how the cause in degradation of execution efficiency is being analyzed and what parameters are utilized in such an analysis. It is further unclear what the output of such an analysis entails. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any type of causal analysis related to performance of a task.
Claim 1 recites “a common ratio calculating processor … a particular action phase identified as worrying” but no such recitation of identifying a “worrying” action phase has been carried out. It is unclear how this limitation relates to the process carried out by the multi-input analysis processor. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the action phase identified by the multi-input analysis processor. This rejection is further applied to the similar limitations of claim 9.
Claim 1 recites “a ratio comparison processor configured with threshold detection circuits” but it is unclear what relationship between the processor and circuits is meant to be communicated by “configured with” it is unclear if the processor, the circuit, or both are performing the recited tasks. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a processor connected to any circuit.
Claim 1 recites “a ratio comparison processor configured with threshold detection circuits that judges … whether the behavior task itself including each action phase has a problem or a sequential execution order of the respective action phases has a problem” It is unclear what factors are considered when making this judgment. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any method of carrying out such a judgment.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a judgment result is outputted to analyze the identified problematic action phases and their sequential relationships to determine specific causes of subject fatigue during chronological task execution” but it is unclear what this limitation is meant to convey. It is unclear what the judgment result entails and where it is generated from. It is unclear what the analysis to determine specific causes of fatigue entails and what element of the system performs this analysis. It is unclear if the recitation “identified problematic action phases” is the same as, related to, or different from the action phases identified by the multi-input analysis processor. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a judgment result being output by the processor wherein the judgment result includes the specific causes of subject fatigue during chronological task execution. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claim 1 recites “wherein advice data is created to improve the subject's health condition including break times, break time timing, and number of break times” but it is unclear how this advice is generated and how they relate to the previously generated metrics such as the specific causes of degradation. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any form of recommendation. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claim 1 recites “an interface provided for the subject to improve the subject's health condition through communicating based on the judgment result for implementing the advice data for modifying the behavior task and the sequential order of action phases”, but the advice data appears to include break times, break time timing, and number of break times which do appear to modify a behavior task but not the sequential order of action phases. It is unclear how the advice data modifies the sequential order of action phases. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the active state detection unit comprises: a near infrared detection unit that irradiates a region of interest of the subject’s face with near infrared light having a wavelength between 650nm and 1350nm … and a far infrared detection unit that detects skin temperature differences between forehead and nose regions by calculating …” but it is unclear if these elements of the active state detect unit are the same as, related to, or intended to further limit the elements described in lines 4-11 of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations are interpreted as further limiting the near and far infrared detection units respectively. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claims 2-6 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on claim 1.
Claims 10-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on claim 9.
Claim 2 recites “the active state detection unit comprises motion sensors” but it is unclear if the motion sensors are the same as, related to, or a subset of the sensors listed in claim 1 lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, the motion sensors are interpreted as the same component as the inertial measurement unit of claim 1. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 10.
Claim 3 recites “the active state detection unit includes a movement recognition unit” but it is unclear if the movement recognition unit is the same as, related to, or a subset of the sensors listed in claim 1 lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, the movement recognition unit is interpreted as the same component as the inertial measurement unit of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the active state detection unit includes a recognition degree detection unit” but it is unclear if the recognition degree detection unit is the same as, related to, or a subset of the sensors listed in claim 1 lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, the recognition degree detection unit is interpreted as the same component as the flicker test unit of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “a health impact assessment processor that judges, in a heath impact judgement result, whether or not there is a possibility that the action phase identified by efficiency threshold processor configured with comparative analysis circuits may damage the subject's health condition” but it is unclear what factors are considered and how the processor judges whether or not the action phase may damage the subject’s health condition. It is further unclear what the meets and bounds of “damage the subject’s health condition” entails. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as any judgment regarding any affect to the user’s health.
Claim 6 recites “a advice generation processor configured to creates advice data” but it is unclear how these limitations relate to the “interface” and “advice” of claim 1. It is further unclear how the advice is generated and how a processor “feeds back and reports the advice data to the subject”. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same things. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 14.
Claim 11 recites “inertia type motion capture” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the variety of sensors and detected parameters of claim 9 lines 4-10. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the inertial measurement unit of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “a flicker test technique” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the variety of sensors and detected parameters of claim 9 lines 4-10. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the flicker test unit of claim 9.
Claim 17 recites “where the infrared detection unit: extracts … calculates… and creates” which reads as though the infrared detection unit itself, i.e. the camera, carries out the recited function rather than a processor connected to the detection unit. It is unclear whether the camera or a connected processor is carrying out the recited functions. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a processor connected to the detection unit carrying out the recited functions.
Claim 18 recites “an inertial measurement unit sensor” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the variety of sensors and detected parameters of claim 1 lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the inertial measurement unit of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “a flicker test unit” but it is unclear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the variety of sensors and detected parameters of claim 1 lines 4-11. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the inertial measurement unit of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “where the infrared detection unit performs coordinate transformation” which reads as though the infrared detection unit itself, i.e. the camera, carries out the recited function rather than a processor connected to the detection unit. It is unclear whether the camera or a connected processor is carrying out the recited function. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a processor connected to the detection unit carrying out the recited functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17 and 20 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 9 and 13-14 recite the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
a second step in claim 9
a fourth step in claim 9
a sixth step in claim 9
a seventh step in claim 9
a tenth step in claim 9
an eleventh step in claim 9
a twelfth step in claim 9
an eighth step in claim 13
a ninth step in claim 14
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The deficiencies of the specification with respect to each of the above listed elements are described in the above presented claim interpretation section. Therefore, the corresponding claim limitations are not fully supported by the specification.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 13-14 recites a number of different types of processors. Each of the various processors are claimed as their own, distinct processor. The specification does not appear to support a device or method which utilizes the claimed number of different processors and does not appear to describe how each of these distinct processors are configured to communicate with each other to carry out the claimed method. Paragraph 0051 appears to indicate that a single processor is utilized.
Claim 1 recites “a correlation analysis processor configured to, when a subject executes a specified behavior task, divides the behavior task into units of action phases in chronological order according to a correlation of the active states of the subject on a basis of active state data which is a detection result of the active state detection unit” but Paragraphs 0127-0130 describe the recited function and provide an example of its use but fail to describe the particular steps taken to perform the recited function. In particular, the steps taken to divide the “nursing care work” behavior task into the respective action phases is not described. The specification does not appear to describe how the active state data is processed to segment it into the various action phases of a behavior task
Claim 1 recites “a Bayesian clustering processor implementing Dirichlet process mixture distribution that, when the subject executes the behavior task, reads the active state data according to the behavior task executed for a plurality of number of times including at least a last time from the data storage unit, performs cluster analysis of each action phase based on similarity, and forms a set of the action phases across multiple instances of the specified behavior task” but paragraphs 0131-0133 indicate that cluster analysis is performed using nonparametric Bayesian method using Dirichlet process mixture distribution on a plurality of parameters indicated with multiple values such as attributes, sex, age, and a skill level of the subject. The claim does not reflect these parameters being used for the cluster analysis but rather the active state data itself. Such clustering is not seemingly supported by the specification. The specification further does not appear to describe how these parameters are acquired. In particular, it is unclear how the parameters of skill and attributes are generated and what they comprise. The specification does not appear to describe how the data gathered by the active state detection unit is processed into the parameters used for clustering
Claim 1 recites “a health transition processor configured to estimates a transition of a health condition of the subject with respect to each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task on a basis of the evaluation function calculated by the calculating processor” but Paragraphs 0139-0142 but do not appear to describe the method used to carry out the estimation. In particular, the estimation uses the evaluation function, or difference between current active state data and standard active state data, to determine a transition of a health condition but the specification does not appear to describe how this determination is performed or describe what a “health condition” or “transition of a health condition” entails. The specification does not appear to describe the particular manner in which a health condition transition is evaluated using the evaluation function.
Claim 1 recites “a efficiency threshold processor configured with comparative analysis circuits that applies the transition of the subject's health condition which is estimated by the health transition processor configured to identify an action phase of the action phases regarding which execution efficiency of the behavior task by the subject based on the transition of the subject’s health condition is equal to or lower than a specified level, wherein the behavior task evaluation system is applied to each of a plurality of different subjects” but the specification does not appear to support such an identifications. Paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0143-0144 do not appear to describe how the execution efficiency is determined in order to make the comparison to a threshold value. The specification does not appear to describe the connection between the transition of the subject’s health condition and the execution efficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a multi-input analysis processor configured to: … analyzes a cause of degradation in execution efficiency of the action phase on a basis of the transition of each subject’s health condition in the action phase” but paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0153-0154, and 0158 describe the analysis in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the degradation cause is determined from the gathered information or provide an example as to what the output of this step entails.
Claim 1 recites “a ratio comparison processor configured with threshold detection circuits that judges … whether the behavior task itself including each action phase has a problem or a sequential execution order of the respective action phases has a problem” but Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158 describe the judgment in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the processor determines if the behavior task itself has a problem or the order of the action phases has a problem and what that problem is. It would seem that the ratio is used to identify when the determination should take place but does not appear to be related to the determination of if the behavior task or order of action phases has a problem.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a judgment result is outputted to analyze the identified problematic action phases and their sequential relationships to determine specific causes of subject fatigue during chronological task execution” but the specification does not appear to describe the analysis used to identify a specific cause of degradation. A degradation cause analysis unit is referenced in the specification in paragraphs 0153-0154 and 0158 but these paragraphs of the specification do not appear to describe how the recited inputs are transformed into the recited outputs. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claim 1 recites “wherein advice data is created to improve the subject's health condition including break times, break time timing, and number of break times” but the specification does not appear to describe how the processor generates recommendations. Paragraphs 0147-0148 recite that the advice may include break times and other parameters but does not appear to disclose how the processor generates this advice data and what input parameters are considered in such a generation. This rejection is further applied to the similar recitations of claim 9.
Claim 5 recites “a health impact assessment processor that judges, in a heath impact judgement result, whether or not there is a possibility that the action phase identified by efficiency threshold processor configured with comparative analysis circuits may damage the subject's health condition” but Paragraphs 0028, 0153, and 0157-0158 describe this limitation in purely functional language and do not appear to describe how the processor determines if the action phase can damage the subject’s health. The specification does not appear to describe what factors are considered and what the judgment entails.
Claim 6 recites “a advice generation processor configured to creates advice data to improve the subject’s health condition in accordance with the judgment result of the health impact assessment processor and feeds back and reports advice data to the subject” but the specification does not appear to describe how the processor generates recommendations. Paragraphs 0147-0148 recite that the advice may include break times and other parameters but does not appear to disclose how the processor generates this advice data and what input parameters are considered in such a generation.
Claims 17 and 20 each recites that the near infrared detection unit performs some form of processing. While the recited processing is supported by the specification, it would seem to be performed on an associated processor rather than the near infrared detection unit itself since it would seem that the near infrared detection unit is merely a camera. A generic infrared camera does not appear to be capable of carrying out the recited processing and thus the full scope of the claims are not supported.
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 1-6, 9-14, 17, and 19-20 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. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17, and 19-20 are directed to a method of detecting a change in user action using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A — Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] detects at least one or more active states from among active states of a subject's cognitive system, motor system, nervous system and physiological system
[B1] divides the behavior task into units of action phases in chronological order according to a correlation of the active states of the subject on a basis of active state data
[C1] stores the active state data in the units of the action phases which constitute the behavior task
[D1] when the subject habitually executes the behavior task, reads the active state data according to the behavior task executed for a plurality of number of times including at least a last time
[E1] performs cluster analysis of each action phase based on similarity
[F1] forms a set of the action phases across multiple instances of the specified behavior task
[G1] calculates a deviation of the subject's active state in each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task as an evaluation function while comparing the action phases to a reference action pattern established as a baseline
[H1] estimates a transition of a health condition of the subject with respect to each action phase across the multiple instances of the specified behavior task on a basis of the evaluation function
[I1] applies the transition of the subject’s health condition to identify an action phase of the action phases regarding which execution efficiency of the behavior task by the subject based on the transition of the subject’s health condition is equal to or lower than a specified level
[J1] when the action phase identified, for at least two of the respective subjects exists in common with the at least the two of the respective subjects, analyzes a cause of degradation in execution efficiency of the action phase on a basis of the transition of each subject's health condition in the action phase
[K1] calculates a ratio representing a number of subjects having a particular action phase identified as worrying divided by a total number of subjects performing that action phase
[L1] judges, when the ratio calculated with respect to each action phase is equal to or more than a specified ratio, whether the behavior task itself including each action phase has a problem or a sequential execution order of the respective action phases has a problem
[M1] wherein a judgment result is outputted to analyze identified problematic action phases and their sequential relationships to determine specific causes of subject fatigue during chronological task execution
[N1] wherein advice data is created to improve the subject’s health condition including break times, break time timing, and number of breaks
[O1] generates pulse rate data by applying a digital filter to remove motion artifacts from reflected light intensity changes
[P1] calculating a relative temperature according to expression Tr = Tn - Tfh, where Tn represents average skin temperature at nose region pixels and Tfh represents average skin temperature at forehead region pixels, to measure autonomic nervous system activity
These elements [A1]-[P1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper; and (3) they involve methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
In particular, the steps [A1]-[P1] appear to recite nothing more than a computer implementation of an observer who observes other humans, recognizes their daily duties, divides their duty into various tasks, and recognizes when the person performs one or more of their tasks unusually. They may then decide that the deviation from typical patterns is indicative of “a transition of a health condition” which may be the patient is tired. The observer may then notice that the same task causes many of their workers to become tired and identify either the specific task, or the order in which tasks are performed, to be the cause of increasing fatigue. The observer may further provide recommendations based on their observations.
Step 2A — Prong Two