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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit,” “a signal communication unit,” and “a stimulus application unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The stimulus application unit is taught to be, for example, an actuator for providing a vibration stimulus.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a detection unit” in line 2 and “a signal communication unit” in line 3. As detailed supra, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description whatsoever of what these units may comprise. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an impulsive emotion such as anger, irritation, anxiousness, panic, suicidal ideation, or catastrophic thoughts.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an impulsive emotion such as anger, irritation, anxiousness, panic, suicidal ideation, or catastrophic thoughts.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 12.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a wearable device” in line 6. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the wearable device (of claim 1) recited in line 2 or to a separate device.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “a wearer” in line 7. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the wearer of claim 1 or to a separate wearer.
Claims 2-8 and 17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
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 9-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 9 and 18 recite steps of receiving log information, displaying a message, receiving an input, and recording the log information and the input. Similarly, independent claims 20 and 22 recite steps of receiving input information, displaying a message, receiving an input, and recording the input information and the input. In other words, the claims receive data, display a message, receive additional data, and store the received data and additional data. This series of operations falls under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas that has been consistently identified by the courts. It also falls under mental processes, which have also consistently been interpreted to be abstract ideas. The steps can be practically performed by the human mind and/or with pen and paper by observing the wearer/user, providing an indication to the user, observing the user’s response, and making a mental note of the observations, but for performance using generic computer components.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 9 and 20 recite generic computer memories and processors, while claims 18 and 22 recite generic non-transitory storage mediums storing executable programs. These additional elements are recited as generic computer components that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and are nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to the technological environment of a computer. The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of additional elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. Further, mere data gathering/receipt and data processing/analysis/display/storage have consistently been considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and are basic, typical computer functions. Here, the data receipt, display, and storage are not proactively used to improve the functioning of a computer or other technology/technical field, they are not used to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, and they do not use the judicial exception in a meaningful way. Nothing is done with the received information/inputs; it is merely recorded. Thus, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims also fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims merely further specify the data/information that is stored or displayed. Accordingly, these claims are also not presently patent-eligible. By contrast, claims 1-8 and 17 apply a stimulus to the wearer upon detection of the specific state and therefore provide significantly more than the abstract idea by effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0110950 A1; cited in the IDS filed 12 October 2022; hereinafter known as “Smith”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a wearable device (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) comprising: a detection unit 110 that detects a specific state of a wearer ([0007]; [0026]; [0033]; [0062]); a signal communication unit 108 that wirelessly transmits, to an information processing apparatus 12, log information indicating a detection result obtained by the detection unit detecting the specific state ([0022]; [0024]; [0061]); and a stimulus application unit 106 that applies a stimulus to the wearer when the specific state is detected by the detection unit ([0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses that the signal communication unit transmits, to the information processing apparatus, the log information further indicating a detection date and time when the specific state is detected ([0020]; [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses that the specific state is a specific emotional state ([0033]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Smith discloses that the specific emotional state is an impulsive emotion such as anger, irritation, anxiousness, panic, suicidal ideation, or catastrophic thoughts, wherein the specific emotional state is an emotion of anger or anxiousness ([0027]; [0043]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses a switch to be pressed by the wearer, wherein the detection unit detects the specific state based on pressing of the switch ([0020]; [0028]-[0029]; [0071[).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses that the detection unit further detects a degree of the specific state ([0022]; [0027]; [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses that the wearable device is a bracelet type wearable device (Fig. 1; [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses an information processing apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) comprising: a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory ([0024]; [0038]; [0061]; [0073]; [0083]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: wirelessly receive, from a wearable device 100, log information indicating detection of a specific state of a wearer ([0007]; [0022]; [0024]; [0026]; [0033]; [0061]-[0062]); display a message for prompting the wearer to make an input regarding the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0035]-[0037]; [0056]; [0060]; [0075]; [0080]); receive the input by the wearer with respect to the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0060]; [0071]; [0075]); and record the log information and the input by the wearer ([0006]; [0022]; [0038]; [0073]).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses that the at least one processor receives the log information further indicating a detection date and time when the specific state is detected ([0020]; [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses that the specific state is a specific emotional state ([0033]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Smith discloses that the specific emotional state is an impulsive emotion such as anger, irritation, anxiousness, panic, suicidal ideation, or catastrophic thoughts, wherein the specific emotional state is an emotion of anger or anxiousness ([0027]; [0043]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses that the input includes a cause of occurrence of the specific emotional state or a state and a feeling of the wearer at a time of the occurrence of the specific emotional state ([0028]; [0033]; [0071]; e.g., episode confirmation or self-reported state).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses that the at least one processor records a detection date and time and a detection place of the specific state, or a degree of the specific state ([0022]; [0027]; [0071]), together with the log information and the input by the wearer, and the at least one processor further displays a screen that visualizes an aggregation result regarding the detection date and time and the detection place of the specific state, the degree of the specific state, or the input by the wearer ([0019]; [0025]; [0038]; [0061]; [0089]; e.g., display/present for evaluation by patients and/or medical professionals).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses an information processing system (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) comprising: the wearable device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1); and an information processing apparatus, which comprises a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory ([0024]; [0038]; [0061]; [0073]; [0083]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: wirelessly receive, from a wearable device 100, log information indicating detection of a specific state of a wearer ([0007]; [0022]; [0024]; [0026]; [0033]; [0061]-[0062]); display a message for prompting the wearer to make an input regarding the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0035]-[0037]; [0056]; [0060]; [0075]; [0080]); receive the input by the wearer with respect to the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0060]; [0071]; [0075]); and record the log information and the input by the wearer, and wherein the at least one processor of the information processing apparatus receives the log information from the wearable device ([0006]; [0022]; [0038]; [0073]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to perform an information process (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2), the information process including: wirelessly receiving, from a wearable device 100, log information indicating detection of a specific state of a wearer ([0007]; [0022]; [0024]; [0026]; [0033]; [0061]-[0062]); displaying a message for prompting the wearer to make an input regarding the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0035]-[0037]; [0056]; [0060]; [0075]; [0080]); receiving the input by the wearer with respect to the detection of the specific state indicated by the log information ([0060]; [0071]; [0075]); and recording the log information and the input by the wearer ([0006]; [0022]; [0038]; [0073]).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses that the computer receives the log information further indicating a detection date and time when the specific state is detected ([0020]; [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses an information processing apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2) comprising: a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory ([0024]; [0038]; [0061]; [0073]; [0083]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a user, input information indicating that the user is in a specific state ([0007]; [0022]; [0024]; [0026]; [0033]; [0061]-[0062]); display a message for prompting the wearer to make an input regarding the detection of the specific state indicated by the input information ([0035]-[0037]; [0056]; [0060]; [0075]; [0080]); receive the input by the wearer with respect to the detection of the specific state indicated by the input information ([0060]; [0071]; [0075]); and record the input information and the input by the wearer ([0006]; [0022]; [0038]; [0073]).
Regarding claim 22, Smith discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to perform an information process (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2), the information process including: receiving, from a user, input information indicating that the user is in a specific state ([0007]; [0022]; [0024]; [0026]; [0033]; [0061]-[0062]); displaying a message for prompting the wearer to make an input regarding the detection of the specific state indicated by the input information ([0035]-[0037]; [0056]; [0060]; [0075]; [0080]); receiving the input by the wearer with respect to the detection of the specific state indicated by the input information ([0060]; [0071]; [0075]); and recording the input information and the input by the wearer ([0006]; [0022]; [0038]; [0073]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claims 9 and 20 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0220163 A1; hereinafter known as “Yamada”). Smith discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to expressly disclose that the at least one processor further displays an operation screen for moving a moving object in the screen and receiving an operation at a time of receiving the log/input information. Yamada discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract; Fig. 14) that displays an operation screen for moving a moving object in the screen and receiving an operation at a time of receiving input information in order to allow the user to designate a target state ([0273]-[0275]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Smith by displaying an operation screen for moving a moving object in the screen and receiving an operation at a time of receiving input information, as taught by Yamada, in order to allow the user to designate a target state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791