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 a final rejection
Claims 1-8 are pending
Claims 1, 4-8 were amended
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for a foreign priority date of 12-16-2020
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12-9-2021 and 10-18-2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 are not patent eligible because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
First, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Regarding claims 1-8 the claims recite an abstract idea of “predicting a personalized pollen allergy”.
Independent Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the following analysis.
-Step 1 (Does the claim fall within a statutory category? YES): claims 1 & 5 recite a method and server of predicting a personalized pollen allergy.
-Step 2A Prong One (Does the claim fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas?: YES): claims 1 and 5 recite:
Receiving... a daily allergic symptom and daily drug taking information of a user
generating a personal allergic symptom diary using- the daily allergic symptom and daily drug taking information of the user;
calculating a daily symptom index using a pollen calendar of a region corresponding to a location of the user and the daily allergic symptom;
obtaining allergy generation risk grades for each pollen generation species and allergy-sensitive tree species of the user by using the pollen generation species and a pollen generation grade extracted from the pollen calendar, and the daily symptom index;
generating a personalized pollen calendar based on the obtained allergy generation risk grades;
generating a personalized risk forecast for each city and county for the user by applying the allergy generation risk grades for each pollen generation species and the allergy-sensitive tree species to a Metrological Administration pollen forecast.
transmitting the personalized risk forecast to the user, wherein the calculating of the daily symptom index comprises:
when the user does not take a drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) determining a first weight depending on whether the allergic symptom is a primary symptom or a secondary symptom, (ii) calculating symptom indexes for allergic symptoms by adding the first weight to each of a number of the allergic symptoms and a duration of each of the allergic symptoms, and (iii) obtaining a first final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms, and
when the user takes the drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) obtaining a symptom alleviation time by comparing a first duration of the allergic symptom before taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms and a second duration of the allergic symptom according to drug alleviation information after taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms, (ii) calculating symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms by adding a second weight to each of the number of the allergic symptoms and the symptom alleviation time and (iii) obtaining a second final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms
wherein the obtaining of the allergy generation risk grades comprises obtaining the allergy generation risk grades based on the first final symptom index and the second final symptom index, and
wherein the second weight is set to be higher as the number of times the user takes the drug increases, and the second weight is set to be lower as the number of times the user takes the drug decreases
belong to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “predicting a personalized pollen allergy”. Alternatively, it belongs to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) as it recites “predicting a personalized pollen allergy” (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
-Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO).
Claims 1 & 5 recite:
personalized pollen allergy prediction server including a network interface, a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions,;
from a user terminal through the network interface
Amounting to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
-Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two,
Claims 1 & 5 recite:
personalized pollen allergy prediction server including a network interface, a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions,;
from a user terminal through the network interface
Amounting to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, the additional elements alone, and in combination do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Step 2A Prong One: The following dependent claims recites additional limitations that further define the abstract idea of “predicting a personalized pollen allergy”. The claim limitations include:
Claims 2 & 6: wherein the calculating of the daily symptom index includes calculating symptom indexes for each pollen generation species by applying the daily symptom index to pollen calendars by region.
Claims 3 & 7: wherein the generating of the personalized pollen calendar includes generating the personalized pollen calendar by comparing a time when the allergy generation risk grades for each pollen generation species persist to a specific grade or higher and a time when the pollen generation grade extracted from the pollen calendar persists to the specific grade or higher to determine the allergy-sensitive tree species and then display an allergic symptom.
Claims 4 & 8: wherein the primary symptom and the secondary symptom, the primary symptom includes one or more of sneezing, clear nasal discharge, stuffy nose, nasal itching, and difficulty in smelling, and the secondary symptom includes one or more of headache, mouth breathing, post nasal drip syndrome, coughing while sleeping, and sleep disorder.
Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO). The following dependent claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea as even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims include:
Claim 6:
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate symptom indexes;
Claim 7:
theprocessor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the personalized pollen calendar;
Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the following dependent claims amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, the additional elements alone, and in combination do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible. The claims include:
Claim 6:
the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate symptom indexes;
Claim 7:
theprocessor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the personalized pollen calendar;
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Closest prior art:
The reference Tipoldi, Manautou, Kun and Kong disclose as shown below:
Tipodi (WO 2019058401 A1) - CORRELATION METHOD BETWEEN ALLERGIC SYMPTOMS AND ALLERGENS - teaches: A multivariate technique for the diagnosis of allergic diseases is based on a study of the relationship between symptoms and allergens that is performed with different algorithms, among which also using as a variable the correction of the concentration of a pollen/allergen for patient-specific sensitization expressed, or not expressed, as a specific activity. It is also foreseen that through: i. collecting of the clinical history and the local pollinic calendar; ii. skin tests "(type skin Prick Test)"; iii. the dosage of serum IgE for extracts and for genuine allergenic molecules; iv. the recording of different Symptoms Medication Scores, curves of both the symptoms and the drugs recorded by the patients, correlated with the curves of inhalant pollen allergens and molds recorded by the patient on the basis of its clinical history and sensitizations, one gets v. the integration of the previous examinations results, with different algorithms, and their representation through the geometric figure of a solid three-dimensional ideal with a regular basis presenting a apex.
Manautou (US 20160256097 A1) - POLLEN SAMPLING AND RETRIEVAL TRIGGERED BY A USER'S ALLERGIC REACTIONS - teaches: Information from a sensor that is local to a user is received. The information may indicate that the user has experienced a physiological event. The information is analyzed to determine whether the physiological event should be classified as an allergic reaction. If the physiological event should be classified as an allergic reaction, an action is taken such as particles currently present in the environment local to the user are collected.
KUN (RU 2773305 C2) - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF RISK OF OCCURRENCE OF POLLEN-CAUSED ALLERGY IN USER - teaches: the determination of a level of the risk of occurrence of a pollen-caused allergy in a user. The system contains an input for receiving information related to the pollen level at a location, an input for receiving information related to the disperse substance level, and an input for receiving information related to the user’s sensitivity to the pollen allergen. The system also contains a processor that is made with the possibility of determination of a risk level by taking into account information related to the pollen level, information related to the disperse substance level, and information related to the user’s sensitivity to the pollen allergen. A user’s interface informs the user about the risk level at the location.
KONG (WO 2019020697 A1) - A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A RISK LEVEL OF A POLLEN-INDUCED ALLERGY OF A USER - teaches: a system for determining a risk level of a pollen-induced allergy of a user. The system comprises an input for receiving information relating to a pollen level in a location, an input for receiving information relating to a particulate matter level in the location and an input for receiving information relating to a sensitivity of a user to pollen allergen. The system further comprises a processor which is adapted to determine the risk level by taking account of the information relating to a pollen level, the information relating to a particulate matter level and the information relating to a sensitivity of the user to pollen allergen. A user interface communicates the risk level in the location to the user.
The closest prior art of record noted above fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the amended independent claims 1 & 5. In particular, the closest prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
when the user does not take a drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) determine a first weight depending on whether the allergic symptom is a primary symptom or a secondary symptom, (ii) calculate symptom indexes for allergic symptoms by adding the first weight to each of a number of the allergic symptoms and a duration of each of the allergic symptoms, and (iii) obtain a first final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms, and
when the user takes the drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) obtain a symptom alleviation time by comparing a first duration of the allergic symptom before taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms and a second duration of the allergic symptom according to drug alleviation information after taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms, (ii) calculate symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms by adding a second weight to each of the number of the allergic symptoms and the symptom alleviation time and (iii) obtain a second final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to obtain the allergy generation risk grades based on the first final symptom index and the second final symptom index, and wherein the second weight is set to be higher as the number of times the user takes the drug increases, and the second weight is set to be lower as the number of times the user takes the drug decreases
Therefore, the claims of the instant application are novel and unobvious.
Foreign prior art and NPL search was conducted however no relevant prior art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-11-2025, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 5, and dependent claims 4, 6-8 as posted in the above analysis with additions underlined and deletions
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC 112(f).
Based on Applicant’s amendments, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of claims 5-8 is withdrawn.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Several steps are taken in the analysis as to whether an invention is rejected under 101. The first step is to determine if the claim falls within a statutory category. In this claims 1 & 5 recite a method and server of predicting a personalized pollen allergy.
The second step under 2A prong one is to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, which would be the case if the invention can be grouped as either: a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; or (c) certain methods of organizing human activity (encompassing (i) fundamental economic principles, (ii) commercial or legal interactions or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). The current invention is classified as an abstract idea since it may be grouped as a mental process as it recites ““predicting a personalized pollen allergy””. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites ““predicting a personalized pollen allergy””.
The third step under 2A Prong Two is to determine if additional elements in the claim imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea in order to integrate it into a practical idea. The current invention does not represent a practical idea since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
the fourth step under 2B is to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. An invention may be classified as an inventive concept if a computer-implemented processes is determined to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. The current invention does not represent an inventive concept since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong ONE
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, yet fails to elaborate further the reasoning to support that argument.
The Examiner nevertheless explains the method used to select the abstract idea, which is to strip the additional elements from the claims. As seen below the recited boldened words constitute the abstract idea after stripping the un-boldened additional elements of amended limitation of claims 1 and 5:
Claims 1 & 5:
A personalized pollen allergy prediction server, including a network interface, a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform:
receiving, from a user terminal through the network interface, a daily allergic symptom and daily drug taking information of a user;
generating a personal allergic symptom diary
calculating a daily symptom index using a pollen calendar of a region corresponding to a location of the user and the daily allergic symptom;
generating a personalized pollen calendar based on the
generating a personalized risk forecast for each city and county for the user by applying the allergy generation risk grades for each pollen generation species and the allergy-sensitive tree species to a Metrological Administration pollen forecast. and
transmitting the personalized risk forecast to the user terminal through the network interface, wherein the calculating of the daily symptom index comprises:
when the user does not take a drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) determining a first weight depending on whether the allergic symptom is a primary symptom or a secondary symptom, (ii) calculating symptom indexes for allergic symptoms by adding the first weight to each of a number of the allergic symptoms and a duration of each of the allergic symptoms, and (iii) obtaining a first final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms, and
when the user takes the drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) obtaining a symptom alleviation time by comparing a first duration of the allergic symptom before taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms and a second duration of the allergic symptom according to drug alleviation information after taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms, (ii) calculating symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms by adding a second weight to each of the number of the allergic symptoms and the symptom alleviation time and (iii) obtaining a second final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms
wherein the obtaining of the allergy generation risk grades comprises obtaining the allergy generation risk grades based on the first final symptom index and the second final symptom index, and
wherein the second weight is set to be higher as the number of times the user takes the drug increases, and the second weight is set to be lower as the number of times the user takes the drug decreases.
The selected abstract idea (boldened limitations) of claims 1 and 5 can be implemented by pencil and paper and thus belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) as it recites “predicting a personalized pollen allergy”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “predicting a personalized pollen allergy”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong TWO
The Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is directed to a practical application based on the amendments but offers no further arguments.
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Most of the added amendments further add to the abstract idea.
The Examiner restates that claims 1 and 5 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Neither claims 1 or 5 recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea:
Claims 1, 5 recite the following additional elements:
personalized pollen allergy prediction server including a network interface, a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions,;
from a user terminal through the network interface
The additional elements as recited above for claims 1, and 15 amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, page 18, paragraphs 14-25 and page 19, paragraphs 1-24, page 20, paragraphs 1-25. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea the Applicant could demonstrate at least one of the conditions enumerated below applies:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Applicant has not demonstrated any of the above listed conditions. As a result, the Examiner restates the rejection of the invention under 35 USC §101.
Step 2B
Similar to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, page 18, paragraphs 14-25 and page 19, paragraphs 1-24, page 20, paragraphs 1-25 (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer components, in combination, do not perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if the generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
In order evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept what could be shown is:
Adding a specific limitation (unconventional other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
The Applicant has not demonstrated the above listed condition.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102.
The Applicant argues that Tipoldi does not teach the following amendments to claims 1 & 5:
when the user does not take a drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) determine a first weight depending on whether the allergic symptom is a primary symptom or a secondary symptom, (ii) calculate symptom indexes for allergic symptoms by adding the first weight to each of a number of the allergic symptoms and a duration of each of the allergic symptoms, and (iii) obtain a first final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms, and
when the user takes the drug responding to the allergic symptom, (i) obtain a symptom alleviation time by comparing a first duration of the allergic symptom before taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms and a second duration of the allergic symptom according to drug alleviation information after taking the drug for each of the allergic symptoms, (ii) calculate symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms by adding a second weight to each of the number of the allergic symptoms and the symptom alleviation time and (iii) obtain a second final symptom index by summing the calculated symptom indexes for the allergic symptoms,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to obtain the allergy generation risk grades based on the first final symptom index and the second final symptom index, and wherein the second weight is set to be higher as the number of times the user takes the drug increases, and the second weight is set to be lower as the number of times the user takes the drug decreases
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments.
Although Tipoldi teaches:
generating a personal allergic symptom diary: pages 15, 16 and 18
calculating a daily symptom index: pages 11, 12, 18 and 26
extracting allergy generation risk grades FIGs. 3, 4, 7a, 9 & 10
generating a personalized risk forecast: pages 10-16 and 17-19
Tipoldi, does not teach or suggest the above-noted amended features. Further no alternate prior art was found to successfully teach the amendments of claims 1-8.
As a result the 35 U.S.C § 102 rejection of claims 1-8 is withdrawn.
For reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-8 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101. In reaching this decision, the Examiner considered all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE L MACCAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-5408. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PIERRE L MACCAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights