DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claim 11 is directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-11 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A condition visualization system comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a user's biometric information from a measuring unit configured to measure the biometric information;
an estimation unit configured to obtain, based on the biometric information, an estimated value representing the user's mental and physical condition;
a processing unit configured to generate, based on the estimated value, mental and physical condition information about the user's mental and physical condition;
an output unit configured to output the mental and physical condition information to a display unit configured to conduct a display based on the mental and physical condition information;
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a subjective value that reflects the user's subjective with respect to the user's own mental and physical condition when the estimated value is obtained; and
a correction information generation unit configured to generate, using a plurality of data sets, each including the estimated value and the subjective value, correction information about correction to be made to the estimated value when the mental and physical condition information is generated,
the processing unit being configured to generate the mental and physical condition information by making correction to the estimated value based on the correction information.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because receiving mental and physical data from various parties, generating an estimated value, acquiring subjective data, generating correction information, and updating the mental and physical condition data amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). 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 “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10-11 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-9 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-3 recite obtaining additional information and outputting data in a matrix form, Claims 4-7 recites to calculating average values for the corrected estimated value; Claim 8 recites storing and updating correction information. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10-11, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. A condition visualization system comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a user's biometric information from a measuring unit configured to measure the biometric information;
an estimation unit configured to obtain, based on the biometric information, an estimated value representing the user's mental and physical condition;
a processing unit configured to generate, based on the estimated value, mental and physical condition information about the user's mental and physical condition;
an output unit configured to output the mental and physical condition information to a display unit configured to conduct a display based on the mental and physical condition information;
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a subjective value that reflects the user's subjective with respect to the user's own mental and physical condition when the estimated value is obtained; and
a correction information generation unit configured to generate, using a plurality of data sets, each including the estimated value and the subjective value, correction information about correction to be made to the estimated value when the mental and physical condition information is generated,
the processing unit being configured to generate the mental and physical condition information by making correction to the estimated value based on the correction information.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the acquisition units, estimation unit, processing unit, output unit, correction information generation unit, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10-11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 9: These claims recite performing spatial control and thus attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the acquisition units, estimation unit, processing unit, output unit, correction information generation unit, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system as described in the preamble. However, the claim does not positively recite any elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, such as computer hardware. It is not clear what structure is included or excluded by the claim language. Software per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. See MPEP 2106.01. Examiner recommends amending the claim to clearly include hardware in order to overcome this rejection. Dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 & 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shriberg (US20210110895) in view of Fumio (JPH11169362A).
As per claim 1, Shriberg teaches a condition visualization system comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire a user's biometric information from a measuring unit configured to measure the biometric information (para. 160: biometric data obtained from measurement device);
an estimation unit configured to obtain, based on the biometric information, an estimated value representing the user's mental and physical condition (para. 160, 170: client device obtains various measurements and generates a score using the measurement data);
a processing unit configured to generate, based on the estimated value, mental and physical condition information about the user's mental and physical condition (para. 173: system generates a report with descriptors for patient including description of patient’s conditions);
an output unit configured to output the mental and physical condition information to a display unit configured to conduct a display based on the mental and physical condition information (para. 173: system generates a report with descriptors for patient including description of patient’s conditions);
a second acquisition unit configured to acquire a subjective value that reflects the user's subjective with respect to the user's own mental and physical condition when the estimated value is obtained (para. 14: score can be continuously updated with processed data obtained from patient’s follow on response to a preceding query); and
a correction information generation unit configured to generate, using a plurality of data sets, each including the estimated value and the subjective value, correction information about correction to be made to the estimated value when the mental and physical condition information is generated (para. 15: system updates assessment of patient by updating the score after receiving each of the plurality of responses, and the method can further comprise: converting the score to one or more scores with a clinical value after each of the updates).
Shriberg does not expressly teach the processing unit being configured to generate the mental and physical condition information by making correction to the estimated value based on the correction information.
Fumio, however, teaches to based on the comparison result between the objective mental and physical state and the subjective mental and physical state, for
example, when a difference of a predetermined value or more occurs in the comparison result between the subjective mental and physical states, a new questionnaire is generated. By presenting to the subject, the accuracy of judgment of the subjective mental and physical condition is improved, and the reliability of the comparison result between the objective mental and physical condition and the subjective mental and physical condition is improved (pg. 9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Fumio with Shriberg based on the motivation of where the accuracy of the determination of the physical and mental state is improved (Fumio – pg. 2).
As per claim 2, Shriberg and Fumio teach the condition visualization system of claim 1. Shriberg does not expressly teach wherein
the estimation unit is configured to obtain, as a plurality of the estimated values, a first-type estimated value with respect to a first type of condition representing the mental and physical condition and a second-type estimated value with respect to a second type of condition representing the mental and physical condition,
the processing unit is configured to generate, based on the first-type estimated value, first mental and physical condition information as a piece of the mental and physical condition information and also generate, based on the second-type estimated value, second mental and physical condition information as another piece of the mental and physical condition information, and
the output unit is configured to output the first mental and physical condition information and the second mental and physical condition information to the display unit to have a combination of the first mental and physical condition information and the second mental and physical condition information displayed as coordinates on a two-dimensional matrix.
Fumio, however, teaches to receiving various values such as normalized variance RRV and average heart rate BEAT (Fig. 5; pg. 3). Fumio also teaches to the degree of concentration of a subject increases toward the left for the normalized variance RRV and upwardly for the average heart rate BEAT. Conversely, the degree of relaxation of a subject increases toward the right for the normalized variance RRV and downwardly for the average heart rate BEAT (Fig. 5; pg. 3). Fumio further teaches to outputting a graph displaying various patient values on a graph format (Fig. 5).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, Shriberg and Fumio teach the condition visualization system of claim 1. Shriberg teaches wherein
the second acquisition unit is configured to store, on acquiring the subjective value, not only the subjective value but also the estimated value representing the mental and physical condition and estimated by the estimation unit in a storage unit in association with each other (para. 434: screening system data store stores and maintains all user and patient data needed for, and collected by, screening or monitoring), and
the correction information generation unit is configured to update the correction information when an update condition for updating the correction information is satisfied (para. 15: receiving data comprising the subsequent response from the subject in response to transmitting the subsequent query. The method can further comprise processing the subsequent response to update the assessment of the mental state of the subject).
As per claim 9, Shriberg and Fumio teaches a spatial control system. Shriberg further teaches comprising a spatial controller configured to perform spatial control based on the mental and physical condition information generated by the condition visualization system of claim 1 (para. 67: plurality of visual elements can be configured to be displayed on a graphical user interface of an electronic device of a user).
Claims 10-11 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Prior Art Rejection
All of the cited references fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within dependent claims 3-7. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: the second acquisition unit is configured to acquire, while the display unit is displaying the first mental and physical condition information and the second mental and physical condition information, coordinates specified on the two-dimensional matrix, also acquire one value, corresponding to the first type, out of two values represented by the coordinates, as the subjective value associated with the first-type estimated value, and further acquire the other value, corresponding to the second type, out of the two values, as the subjective value associated with the second-type estimated value and the correction information generation unit is configured to calculate, using at least a predetermined number of data sets, each having the same estimated value, out of the plurality of data sets, an average value of a plurality of subjective values included in the at least the predetermined number of data sets to generate, as the correction information with respect to the estimated value, the average value thus calculated.
The most relevant prior art of record includes:
Shriberg (US20210110895) teaches to systems and methods for assessing a mental state of a subject in a single session or over multiple different sessions, using for example an automated module to present and/or formulate at least one query based in part on one or more target mental states to be assessed.
Fumio (JPH11169362A) teaches to a psychosomatic state awareness assisting apparatus for urging a subject to be aware of whether or not a subjective evaluation of a subject's psychosomatic state and an objective measurement result match or differ from each other.
Amarasingham (US20170061093) teaches to A dashboard user interface method includes displaying a navigable list of patients each associated with a target disease with a calculated risk level, displaying historic and current data associated with a selected patient in the patient list identified as being associated with the target disease, displaying an identification of key factors in the selected patient's health data that contribute to the risk level for the selected patient with respect to the target disease, receiving and displaying care management notes for transitional care intervention for the selected patient, and displaying automatically-generated intervention and treatment recommendations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linthicum (US20100131883) teaches to a multi-level information display system graphically represents clinical information for a user. The system includes a user interface providing clinical content to a user and accepting user input with respect to clinical content. The system also includes a graphical summary representation of a patient-related clinical data value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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 Ng/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619