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 .
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 20 December 2024.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,3,6,15-20 are amended
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on 18 June 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner.
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 1,15-16,19-20 are rejected for lack of adequate written description.
Claims 1,15-16,19-20 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 at the time of filing.
Specifically, the claims recite (Claim 1 being representative) “interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections” The Applicant has provided no disclosure of how this analysis and determination occurs. The Specification states:
[Para. 0086] In Step S107, in a case where there is a defective section, the transmission data generation unit 223 interpolates the section by using measurement data in previous and next sections.
However, there is no specific description as to how the interpolation of the transmission data is performed. Any interpolation could potentially read on the as-claimed invention. For instance, is the interpolation based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections? Or, is the interpolation based the previous and next sections? The Examiner simply cannot tell. The claimed analysis and determination amount to a black box into which information is inputted and a result is received; however, there is no disclosure as to what occurs in the box. As such, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description. MPEP 2161.01.
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.
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 1-20 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 1,15-16,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) and apparatus, methods, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium. The limitations of:
Claims 1, 15-16, 19-20 (Claim 1 being representative)
receive first measurement data associated with a medical device and second measurement data associated with a non-medical device;
generate on the first measurement data and the second measurement data;
generate a second determination model based on the first measurement data;
apply one models to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data;
generate a determination result based on the application;
determine a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result;
generate transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user;
detect a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data;
interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
generate display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data;
display the generated display data.
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing unit, and information processing apparatus, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing unit, and information processing apparatus, that implements the identified abstract idea. The processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing unit, and information processing apparatus is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional element of a display unit. The display unit merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing unit, and information processing apparatus to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a display unit was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-14,17-18 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2,17 merely describe(s) changing the weights of the models. Claim(s) 3, 18 merely describe(s) generating models. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) differentiating data. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) a measurement target. Claim(s) 6 merely describes displaying data. Claim(s) 10-12 merely describes the determination result screen.
Claim(s) 7-9 also includes the additional element of measurement devices. Claim(s) 13-14 also include the additional element of an observation screen. All of these additional elements are analyzed the same as the “display unit” and do not provide a practical application and/or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
Claims 1,4-7,9,10,13-16,19-20] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran et al (US Publication No. US-20150125832-A1) in view of NAGASAKA et al (US Publication No. 20160370401).
Regarding Claim 1
Tran teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising:
a processing unit configured to [Tran at Para. 0053 teaches the housing contains the processor and associated peripherals to provide the human-machine interface]:
receive first measurement data associated with a medical device and second measurement data associated with a non-medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 teaches the patient 30 may wear one or more wearable patient monitoring appliances such as wrist-watches or clip on devices or electronic jewelry to monitor the patient. One wearable appliance such as a wrist-watch includes sensors 40, for example devices for sensing ECG, EKG, blood pressure, sugar level, among others. In one embodiment, the sensors 40 are mounted on the patient's wrist (such as a wristwatch sensor) and other convenient anatomical locations. Exemplary sensors 40 include standard medical diagnostics for detecting the body's electrical signals emanating from muscles (EMG and EOG) and brain (EEG) and cardiovascular system (ECG). Leg sensors can include piezoelectric accelerometers designed to give qualitative assessment of limb movement. Additionally, thoracic and abdominal bands used to measure expansion and contraction of the thorax and abdomen respectively. A small sensor can be mounted on the subject's finger in order to detect blood-oxygen levels and pulse rate. Additionally, a microphone can be attached to throat and used in sleep diagnostic recordings for detecting breathing and other noise (sleep sensor interpreted as non-medical device)];
generate a first determination model based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 teaches in one embodiment, data driven analyzers may be used to track the patient's habits. These data driven analyzers may incorporate a number of models such as parametric statistical models, non-parametric statistical models, clustering models, nearest neighbor models, regression methods, and engineered (artificial) neural networks (patient’s habits interpreted to include data from medical and non-medical devices)];
generate a second determination model based on the first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (first and second determination models interpreted to be the same model)];
apply one of the first determination model or the second determination model to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178];
generate a determination result based on the application of one of the first determination mode or the second determination model [Tran at Para. 0261 teaches the system can perform automated auscultation of the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, or both. For example, the system can differentiate pathological from benign heart murmurs, detect cardiovascular diseases or conditions that might otherwise escape attention, recommend that the patient go through for a diagnostic study such as an echocardiography or to a specialist, monitor the course of a disease and the effects of therapy, decide when additional therapy or intervention is necessary, and providing a more objective basis for the decision(s) made];
determine a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result [Tran at Para. 0492 teaches in an example, the system can also provide personalized recommendations based on the user information. For example, if a user is so obese that he/she cannot walk, then “start walking” would not be a transmitted recommendation for the user in response to test results showing that the user has increased blood glucose. In an example, the user preferences for particular food likes and dislikes, along with their personal preferences for exercise type, exertion level, timings, the user subjective reactions such as general well-being, lethargy, light-headedness, nausea, severe headache, and the like parameters are considered in the one or more rules such as to determine recommendations for the user. In an example, the user's reaction to the recommended course of action may be applied in analysis and determination of further recommendations for the user]
generate transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user [Tran at Para. 0185 teaches these programs, for example, may provide a report that features statistical analysis of these data to determine averages, data displayed in a graphical format, trends, and comparisons to doctor-recommended values];
detect a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0257 teaches an accelerometer is used to detect arm movement and used to remove inappropriate data capture (removing inappropriate data capture interpreted to include detecting a plurality of defective sections)];
generate display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0185];
and control a display unit to display the generated display data [Tran at Para. 0480 teaches Step 6: Display the recommendations to the user 1348].
Tran does not teach interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
NAGASAKA teaches interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections [NAGASAKA at 0066 teaches next, based on the values of the relative speed and the relative angle obtained for each cycle, the control section 340 generates interpolation sensor data at timing matching with a time when the positioning data is acquired by GPS (represented as “GPS observation cycle” in FIG. 7) so as to perform linear interpolation processing (Step S106). Here, in FIG. 7, the relative speed and the relative angle are collectively represented as sensor data or interpolation sensor data for convenience of explanation. (interpreted to combine with data and defective sections of Tran)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data of Tran with the interpolation of NAGASAKA with the motivation to improve a user’s health condition [NAGASAKA at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 4
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
receive measurement data [Tran at Para. 0460 teaches the portable electronic device 3150 can be configured to collect sensor data via sensors integrated on it and determine the status of the user to provide appropriate recommendations];
and differentiate the measurement data as the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0036 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 5
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the determination result is one of a disease estimation result of the user or an action recommendation result for the user [Tran at Para. 0469 teaches in an embodiment, the controller module 3160 can be configured to predict preventive health care recommendation based on one or more rules and the one or more habits collected from the user 1348 (interpreted as an action recommendation result for the user)].
Regarding Claim 6
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to output the measurement target to the display unit [Tran at Para. 0188 teaches the patient interface displays vital information such as ambulation, blood pressure and related data measured from a single patient].
Regarding Claim 7
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the measurement data includes vital sign information associated with a vital sign of the user, and measurement device information associated with a plurality of measurement devices [Tran at Para. 0381 teaches in one embodiment, the doctor can provide the patient with an optional monitoring hardware that measures patient activity (such as accelerometers) and/or vital signs (such as EKG amplifiers)].
Regarding Claim 9
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7,
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches wherein the vital sign information includes a specific value associated with the plurality of measurement devices [Tran at Para. 0185 teaches software programs associated with the Internet-accessible website, secondary software system, and the personal computer analyze the blood pressure, and heart rate, and pulse oximetry values to characterize the patient's cardiac condition. These programs, for example, may provide a report that features statistical analysis of these data to determine averages, data displayed in a graphical format, trends, and comparisons to doctor-recommended values], time information associated with measurement of the vital sign of the user [Tran at Para. 0019 teaches data measured several times each day provide a relatively comprehensive data set compared to that measured during medical appointments separated by several weeks or even months. This allows both the patient and medical professional to observe trends in the data, such as a gradual increase or decrease in blood pressure, which may indicate a medical condition], and identification information of the user as the measurement target [Tran at Para. 0292 teaches the system can show a persons demographics, includes aliases, people involved in their care, friends and family, previous addresses, home and work locations, alternative numbers and custom fields. The system can show all data elements of a persons medical record], and the plurality of measurement devices comprises the medical device and the non- medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 10
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to control display of the measurement target on a determination result screen of the display unit in a specific display form [Tran at Para. 0480 teaches Step 6: Display the recommendations to the user 1348].
Regarding Claim 13
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to control display of the first measurement data and the second measurement data in a specific display form on an observation screen [Tran at Para 0036 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 14
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 13,
Tran/NAGASAKA further teaches wherein the observation screen includes first information associated with an integration result, the integration result includes second information that corresponds to the first measurement data and the second measurement data, and the observation screen includes third information that corresponds to one of the first measurement data or the second measurement data for each temporal section [Tran at Para. 0036 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 15
Tran teaches an information processing method, comprising:
receiving first measurement data associated with a medical device and second measurement data associated with a non-medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a first determination model based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a second determination model based on the first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
applying one of the first determination model or the second determination model to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a determination result based on the application of one of the first determination model or the second determination model [Tran at Para. 0261 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
determining a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result [Tran at Para. 0492 (see Claim 1 for explanation)]:
generating transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
detecting a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0257 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and controlling a display unit to display the generated display data [Tran at Para. 0480 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Tran does not teach interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
NAGASAKA teaches interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections [NAGASAKA at 0066 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data of Tran with the interpolation of NAGASAKA with the motivation to improve a user’s health condition [NAGASAKA at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 16
Tran teaches an information processing system, comprising:
a medical device configured to generate first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
a non-medical device configured to generate second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and an information processing apparatus that comprises:
a processing unit configured to [Tran at Para. 0053 (see Claim 1 for explanation)]:
receive the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generate a first determination model based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generate a second determination model based on the first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
apply one of the first determination model or the second determination model to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generate a determination result based on the application of one of the first determination model or the second determination model [Tran at Para. 0261 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
determine a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result [Tran at Para. 0492 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generate transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
detect a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0257 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generate display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and control a display unit to display the generated display data [Tran at Para. 0480 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Tran does not teach interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
NAGASAKA teaches interpolate the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections [NAGASAKA at 0066 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data of Tran with the interpolation of NAGASAKA with the motivation to improve a user’s health condition [NAGASAKA at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 19
Tran teaches an information processing method, comprising:
generating a first measurement data associated with a medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a second measurement data associated with a non-medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
receiving the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating first determination model based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a second determination model based on the first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
applying one of the first determination model or the second determination model to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a determination result based on the application of one of the first determination model or the second determination model [Tran at Para. 0261 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
determining a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result [Tran at Para. 0492 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
detecting a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0257 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and controlling a display unit to display the generated display data [Tran at Para. 0480 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Tran does not teach interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
NAGASAKA teaches interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections [NAGASAKA at 0066 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data of Tran with the interpolation of NAGASAKA with the motivation to improve a user’s health condition [NAGASAKA at Para. 0005].
Regarding Claim 20
Tran teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute operations, the operations comprising:
receiving first measurement data associated with a medical device and second measurement data associated with a non-medical device [Tran at Para. 0050 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a first determination model based on the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a second determination model based on the first measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
applying one of the first determination model or the second determination model to both the first measurement data and the second measurement data [Tran at Para. 0178 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating a determination result based on the application of one of the first determination model or the second determination model [Tran at Para. 0261 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
determining a user as a measurement target based on the generated determination result [Tran at Para. 0492 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating transmission data based on the determination result, wherein the transmission data is associated with the determined user [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
detecting a plurality of defective sections in the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0257 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
generating display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data [Tran at Para. 0185 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and controlling a display unit to display the generated display data [Tran at Para. 0480 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Tran does not teach interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections;
NAGASAKA teaches interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of the plurality of defective sections [NAGASAKA at 0066 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine data of Tran with the interpolation of NAGASAKA with the motivation to improve a user’s health condition [NAGASAKA at Para. 0005].
Claims 2-3,17-18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran, NAGASAKA as applied to claim 1,14-15,19-20 above, and further in view of ZHU et al (Foreign Publication WO-2018073786-A1).
Regarding Claim 2
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
Tran/NAGASAKA does not teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a weight of the second measurement data based on the determination result.
ZHU teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a weight of the second measurement data based on the determination result [ZHU at Para. 00124 teaches similarly, the weights applied to different vital sign scores may be different and determined based on information specifically related to the person, e.g., retrieved from, e.g., the user database 1040 and the health/medical history database 1050 (interpreted to combine with non-medical data of Tran)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Tran, NAGASAKA with the weights of ZHU with the motivation to improve real time health related services.
Regarding Claim 3
Tran/NAGASAKA/ZHU teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
Tran/NAGASAKA/ZHU further teaches wherein the first determination model is associated with a daily guideline [Tran at Para. 0406 teaches in yet another embodiment, the system can automatically generate graphs for review by the patient and the dietitian to aid in preparing a meal plan and for the benefit of the patients to aid in setting goals in altering the eating habits. One chart can be a nutrient chart showing recommended daily requirements with respect to the amount of vitamins and nutrients consumed during an average day in comparison with the recommended allowance], and the second determination model is associated with a medical intervention [Tran at Para. 0261 teaches for example, the system can differentiate pathological from benign heart murmurs, detect cardiovascular diseases or conditions that might otherwise escape attention, recommend that the patient go through for a diagnostic study such as an echocardiography or to a specialist, monitor the course of a disease and the effects of therapy, decide when additional therapy or intervention is necessary, and providing a more objective basis for the decision(s) made].
Regarding Claim 17
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing system according to claim 16,
Tran/NAGASAKA does not teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
change a weight of the second measurement data based on the determination result;
and generate the second determination model based on the change in the weight of the second measurement data.
ZHU teaches change a weight of the second measurement data based on the determination result [ZHU at Para. 00124 (see Claim 2 for explanation)];
and generate the second determination model based on the change in the weight of the second measurement data [ZHU at Para. 00233 teaches the classification models may be dynamically updated or continually trained when any new information is made available (new information interpreted to include changes in weight of measurement data)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Tran, NAGASAKA with the weights of ZHU with the motivation to improve real time health related services.
Regarding Claim 18
Claim(s) 18 is/are analogous to Claim(s) 3, thus Claim(s) 18 is/are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 3.
Claims 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran, NAGASAKA as applied to claim 1,14-15,19-20 above, and further in view of CROUTHER et al (Foreign Publication WO-2010141922-A1).
Regarding Claim 8
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7,
Tran/NAGASAKA does not teach wherein the measurement device information includes a name of each of the plurality of measurement devices, a manufacturer of each of the plurality of measurement devices, and first information associated with a version of each of the plurality of measurement devices.
CROUTHER teaches wherein the measurement device information includes a name of each of the plurality of measurement devices, a manufacturer of each of the plurality of measurement devices, and first information associated with a version of each of the plurality of measurement devices [CROUTHER at Para. 0039 teaches in certain embodiments, the manufacturing data may include data that is used to identify the device 201 such as, for example, a serial number of the device 201. Additionally, the manufacturing data may also include default settings for the device 201 (e.g. unit of measure, an analog to digital converter (ADC) count etc.) and/or a current version of software that is being executed by the device 201].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Tran, NAGASAKA with the manufacturing data of CROUTHER with the motivation to better assist users in managing their health.
Claims 11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran, NAGASAKA as applied to claim 1,14-15,19-20 above, and further in view of Saeed et al (US Publication No. 20080214904).
Regarding Claim 11
Tran/NAGASAKA teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 10,
Tran does not teach wherein the determination result screen includes the measurement target and first information associated with a physiological index of the user, and the processing unit is further configured to determine the user as the measurement target based on the physiological index of the user.
Saeed teaches wherein the determination result screen includes the measurement target and first information associated with a physiological index of the user, and the processing unit is further configured to determine the user as the measurement target based on the physiological index of the user [Saeed at Para. 0036 teaches with continuing reference to FIG. 3, the home screen 88 includes a linear scaled graphic window 110 showing a patient index trend or SAPS-II score curve 112 over time. The latest (or current) time tL for the patient index curve 112 is placed at a point close to the right end of the window 110 and marked with a vertical cursor or mechanism 114].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Tran, NAGASAKA with the index of Saeed with the motivation to improve treatment outcomes.
Claims 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran, NAGASAKA, Saeed as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sevenster et al (US Publication No. 20180322955).
Regarding Claim 12
Tran/NAGASAKA/Saeed teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 11,
Tran/NAGASAKA/Saeed do not teach wherein the determination result screen includes second information associated with a contribution degree of the medical device.
Sevenster teaches wherein the determination result screen includes second information associated with a contribution degree of the medical device [Sevenster at Para. 0005 teaches the present disclosure is directed to methods and apparatus for visually indicating contributions of clinical risk factors to various model-based health assessments. In various embodiments, a plurality of clinical risk factors associated with a particular patient may be received, e.g., at one or more input interfaces of a computing device and/or from one or more databases (interpret to combine with devices of Tran)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Tran, NAGASAKA, Saeed with the contribution of Sevenster with the motivation to better understand a patient’s clinical risk factors.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The Applicant respectfully submits that at least the steps of detecting defective sections in the transmission data, interpolating the transmission data based on the first measurement data, the second measurement data, and the detection of defective sections; and generating display data based on the transmission data and the interpolation of the transmission data are not directed towards organizing human activity. Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that the above-mentioned steps are not directed towards a person’s interaction with a computer, as the above mentioned steps do not merely involve human intervention/decision-making/mental steps. In fact, the above mentioned steps of medical data processing are completed performed by the apparatus and independent of any human intervention.
Accordingly, the Applicant has shown a teaching in the Specification that describes a practical implementation and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception.
Comparisons to Claim 3 of Example 48 in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Regarding Step 2B, the features of amended independent claim 1 are directed towards generating first and second determination models, which results in an effective utilization of data from the non-medical device. Further, the features of amended independent claim 1 go beyond mere instructions to applying the exception using a generic computer component, as they are directed towards complete data manipulation and data migration, which results in an increased reliability of the data from non-medical devices.
Accordingly, the limitations of amended independent claim 1 result in effective utilization of data from the non-medical device, which is an improvement over the traditional systems that do not effectively utilize non-medical data for medical purposes.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Multiple CAFC decisions that the Office has characterized as Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity did not actively recite a person or persons performing the steps of the claims (see, e.g., EPG, TLI communications, Ultramercial). Because whether a human is required to perform the step of the claim is not a requirement for claims to encompass certain method of organizing human activity, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant identified, any technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) sates that one way in which a claimed abstract idea may be subject matter eligible under prong 2A2 is if the claimed invention provides an improvement to the computer or an improvement another technology or technological field. Example 48, Claim 3 is an illustration of this. The Specification of Example 48 describes how prior speech separation techniques were unable to separate different conversations from one another such that unwanted utterances are identified and removed. The additional elements of (e) and (f) of Example 48, Claim 3 provide a solution to this problem. Since a technical problem has not been found, a practical application cannot therefore be found.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Giving a model more data does not provide a practical application. The amount of data given does not change how the computer functions and is thus doing what generic computers were designed to do.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Prior art references do not teach the newly added limitations to the amended independent claims.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given their broadest reasonable interpretation, Tran does cover the amended claims. The claims do not do enough to different the first and second determination models and can be interpreted to be the same model. The term “defective section” is not clearly defined in the claim or specification and is thus given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is covered by the prior art of Tran at Para. 0257. The prior art of Tran at Para. 0185, 0299 and 0480 cover the newly added limitations to the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Yang et al (US Publication No. 20060183980) discloses a system for monitoring and diagnosing the mental and physical health status of the patient.
Rothman et al (US Publication No. 20180247713) discloses methods and systems described for leveraging wearable physiological sensors and a network of supporting technology to provide adaptive complimentary self-assessment and automated health scoring.
Sobol et al (US Publication No. 20190209022) discloses a wearable electronic device and corresponding system for monitoring one or more of location, environmental, activity and physiological (LEAP) data of a wearer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272 - 6773. 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683