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 .
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 1-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 10 and 11-12 recite(s):
receiving data relating to the use of a device by a user;
determining a usage quality measure for the user based on the received data;
providing first guidance data for presentation to the user of the device, the first guidance data relating to the use of the device;
responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is equal to or greater than a first quality threshold, halting presentation of first guidance data to the user; and
responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is below a second quality threshold for a minimum amount of time or during a minimum number of usage instances of the devices, providing second guidance data for presentation to the user of the device.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a device”, “a sensor” and “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher or parents observing a subject, collecting the data from the observation and provide guidance to perform certain action (e.g. teeth brushing).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “a device”, “a sensor” and “a processor”.
These devices in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does 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 to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see page 5 line 10-15). Furthermore, the “a device” and “a sensor” can also be interpreted as "extra-solution activity" or “field of use activity” since these devices were only used as a data gathering step.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-9, 12-15 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). For example, claim 2-3, 12 and 14 of the limitation discusses the type of received data; claim 4-5 limitation are directed to the intended uses of the data; claims 6-8 limitations are directed to the quality of the data the treatment of such data; claim 9 and 15 are directed to the transmission of the guidance data and the transmission to the user and claim 14 are directed to the step of acquiring the data. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardeman et al US 11,197,537 and in view of Ronen US 20190074090
Claim 1, 10 and 11: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of receiving data relating to the use of a device by a user (see col. 9:7-11); determining a usage quality measure for the user based on the received data (see col. 17:1-5); and providing first guidance data for presentation to the user of the device, the first guidance data relating to the use of the device (see col. 13:47-53).
The Hardeman reference also provides a teaching of responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is equal to or greater than a first quality threshold, halting presentation of first guidance data to the user (see col. 12:15-25 moving to a new segment to clean when a compliance level has been met); and responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is below a second quality threshold, providing second guidance data for presentation to the user of the device (see col. 12:17-25 a guided to a new segment)
Specifically for claim 10, a non-transitory computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium that perform the method of claim 1 (see col 4:53-60).
The Hardeman reference is silent on the teaching of responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is below a second quality threshold for a minimum amount of time of the device, providing second guidance data for presentation to the user of the device.
However, the Ronen reference provides a teaching of responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is below a second quality threshold for a minimum amount of time of the device, providing second guidance data for presentation to the user of the device (see paragraph 191 detecting a time period when the user’s health score is low for a period of time and paragraph 193 the system providing feedback to the user to ameliorate the condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hardeman reference with the feature of responsive to determining that the usage quality measure is below a second quality threshold for a minimum amount of time of the device, providing second guidance data for presentation to the user of the device, as taught by the Ronen reference, in order to take account of the user’s health trend (see paragraph 206-207).
Specifically for claim 11, the Hardeman reference provides a teaching of a processor (see col. 6:40-45).
Claims 2 and 14: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of wherein the data is acquired using at least one sensor associated with the device (see col. 14:50-55 “motion sensor”).
Claim 3: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of wherein the data comprises data selected from a group comprising: a measure of time spent using the device, a measure of time spent performing a particular action using the device (se col. 8:59-65 ).
Claim 4: The Hardeman provides a teaching of wherein the guidance data relates to an optimal use of the device (see col. 15:42-49 guidance is made to optimized the use of the toothbrush on a segment).
Claim 5: The Hardeman provides a teaching of level at which a quality of usage of the device by the user is considered to be at a minimum intended quality level (see col. 13:30-40).
Claim 6: The Hardeman provides a teaching wherein the second quality threshold is determined based on at least one of initial quality measure for the user, a current usage quality measure of the user (see col. 8:55-60 historical hygiene data would inherently include an initial quality measure for the user (since all data must have an intial point) and a current usage quality measure of the user (since the Hardeman reference provides a teaching of evaluating the current quality usage data of the user).
Claim 7: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of wherein the second guidance data is provided for presentation to the user responsive further to determining that the usage quality measure is below the second quality threshold for a defined duration (see col. 8:63-67 additional time required when the user has forgotten the clean specific area).
Claim 8: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of wherein the nature of the second guidance data is determined based on the rate of decrease in the usage quality measure from the first quality threshold to the second quality threshold (see col. 8:40-50).
Claims 9 and 15: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of wherein providing the first guidance data and/or the second guidance data comprises transmitting the first guidance data and/or the second guidance data to a connected device for presentation to the user (see col. 6:15-20).
Claim 12: The Hardeman reference provides a teaching of where in the received data relates to the use of the device (see col. 2:20-35).
Claim 13: The Hardeman provides a teaching wherein the device comprises a device selected from a group comprising: a personal care device, an oral care device (see col. 5:40-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the limitation is directed to a “device-guidance control scheme in which second guidance is not triggered merely upon any sub-threshold event, but only when the measured usage quality remains below a second threshold for a minimum time or across a minimum number of device usage instances. The claims operate in the context of device usage, sensor- derived usage data, and threshold-based state evaluation, and are directed to control of guidance delivery in a device environment rather than organizing human interactions.” Examiner take the position that current claim limitation is not commensurate to Applicant’s argument. The current claim limitation is broad enough that the limitation can be read as someone receiving a set of data, perform analysis on said data and providing guidance to the user on the result of such analysis. Examiner suggests that further amendment that ties control method with a specific hardware and sensors be submitted to help overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715