Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-13 has been considered and are addressed below. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 2-17-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that claims recite a specific technological control scheme in which the processor cooperates with an installed application to acquire user input information during ordinary application interaction, without requiring an additional user operation related to measurement or presentation and conditionally issues a command based on health related content. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The passive collection of data using an app is using computer components to execute the abstract idea in this case it’s using the wearable device to collect information similar to that of a smartwatch (apple watch). The notification is also part of the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the computer technology itself rather it uses genetic computer components to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art is moot in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims and are addressed below.
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, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-13 are drawn to a computer implemented computer readable non-transitory medium, computer implemented method, system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 12 and 13 recite “acquires input information including a text, a pictogram, an emoticon or an image input or a selection item selected”, “issues a command related to measurement or presentation of biological information that measures the biological information of a user in a case in which a content of the input information satisfies a predetermined condition that the content includes a content related to a physical condition, a symptom, health, feeling, emotion, or a disease name of the user.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including, “at least one processor”, “measurement devices”, “from an application installed in the information processing apparatus via cooperation with the application during the user's interaction with the application, without requiring an additional user operation related to measurement or presentation of biological information to a wearable device worn by the user that measures the biological information of a user” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims does not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 27 recite “the CPU 101 loads the control program 110 stored in the non-volatile memory 103 into the RAM 102, and executes the processing in accordance with the control program 110. The CPU 101 is an example of a “processor” according to the disclosed technology.”
Paragraph 25 recites “The biological information measurement device 20 measures the biological information of the user. The biological information may be, for example, information indicating at least one of a body temperature, a heartbeat, electrocardiography, myoelectricity, a blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2), a blood glucose level, or a lipid level. The biological information measurement device 20 may be a wearable device, such as a smart watch, comprising a sensor that measures these pieces of the biological information.”
The claims does not recite additional element which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 3-11 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kaditz (US 2019/0025280) in view of Orlov (2017/0235882).
With respect to claim 1 Kaditz teaches 1 an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (Kaditz paragraph 6 processor),
wherein the processor
acquires input information including a text, a pictogram, an emoticon, or an image input to the information processing apparatus, or a selection item selected by using the information processing apparatus (Kaditz paragraph 69 “the medical test includes one or more MR techniques, such as: magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic-resonance spectroscopy (MRS), another MR technique, computed tomography, ultrasound imaging, X-ray imaging, positron emission spectroscopy, electron spin resonance, optical/infrared spectroscopy (e.g., to determine a complex index of refraction at one or more wavelengths), an electrical measurement (such as an electrocardiogram, an electromyogram, an electroencephalogram, etc.), proton beam, photoacoustic imaging, other non-destructive measurements (such as radar or millimeter-wave scanning), activity or behavior data for a biological organism (such as data capture using a wearable electronic device), measurements performed by nano particles in the biological sample, chemical composition of fluids (such as blood) measured at arbitrary locations in the biological organism non-destructively or by drawing a blood sample (e.g., using microfluidics), height, weight, a vital sign (pulse, respiration, temperature, blood pressure, etc.), genetic or genomic information (such as sequencing, next-generation sequencing, RNA sequencing, epigenetic information, etc.), quantitative tensor field maps, medical images, blood or lab tests, microbiome analysis, urine analysis, stool analysis, thermal-imaging readings, optical images, body impedance, biopsies, another quantitative or qualitative characteristic or property of the biological sample, etc”), and
issues a command related to measurement or presentation of biological information to the wearable, in a case in which a content of the input information satisfies a predetermined condition that the content includes a content related to a physical condition, a symptom, health, feelings, emotion or a disease name of the user (Kaditz paragraph 91 “determines a diagnosis 338 for a condition of the individual based, at least in part, on revised results 336 when the uncertainty of test result 336 is less than a threshold. (Note that the uncertainty of test result 322 may be greater than the threshold.) Moreover, processor 316 may provide, via interface circuit 314, information 340 (including revised results 336 and/or diagnosis 338) to interface circuit 310 in electronic device 110-2”).
Kaditz does not explicitly teach from an application installed in the information processing apparatus via cooperation with the application during the user's interaction with the application, without requiring an additional user operation related to measurement or presentation of biological information to a wearable device worn by the user that measures the biological information of a user.
Orlov teaches a plurality of devices that are operable by the patient user 20, each having an installed version of the patient application 22 operable on the respective device (Orlov paragraph 26) which reads on installation of the app.
Orlov teaches the wearable device 38g may include a user interface or screen that allows a user to interact with the wearable device 38g and run the patient application 22 to perform the functionality described hereinabove. The wearable device 38g may be configured to passively gather the biometric information 39 from the patient user 20 while the wearable device 38g is being worn by the patient user 20 (Orlov paragraph 30).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kaditz in view of Orlov at the time of filing with the motivation of improving disease and/or condition management system based on data collection and analysis of collected data related to a patient that incorporates doctor input, analysis, feedback, and/or instruction would be well received in the art (Orlov paragraph 4).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input information satisfying the condition is information including a content related to a physical condition, a symptom, health, feeling, emotion, or a disease name of the user (Kaditz paragraph 45).
With respect to claim 3 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the command is a command to start the measurement of the biological information (Kaditz paragraph 65).
With respect to claim 4 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the command is a command to transmit the biological information (Kaditz paragraph 92).
With respect to claim 5 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the command is the command to transmit the biological information at a point in time corresponding to a point in time when the input information satisfying the condition is input (Kaditz paragraph 151).
With respect to claim 6 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the command is a command to change a measurement condition of the biological information (Kaditz paragraph 127).
With respect to claim 7 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input information is information input on an application installed in the information processing apparatus (Kaditz paragraph 217).
With respect to claim 8 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claims 1, wherein the input information includes a search keyword input to a search engine for searching for information on a network (Kaditz paragraph 195).
With respect to claim 9 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input information includes a content transmitted to or sent to a specified or unspecified party (Kaditz paragraph 207).
With respect to claim 10 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input information includes information on a product or service purchased or a product or service to be purchased by information communication via a network (Kaditz paragraph 105).
With respect to claim 11 Kaditz teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further issues a command related to measurement or presentation of biological information of a third party other than the user to a measurement device that measures the biological information of the third party, and is registered or authenticated in advance, in a case in which the content of the input information satisfies the condition (Kaditz paragraph 110).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684