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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 1/20/2023. Claims 1-4 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶14 in the specification refers to a “recoding medium” in multiple instances, which appears to be a typo meant to read “recording medium” as shown in Figure 1, 101.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3 :
Claims 1 and 3 recite “the basis of similarity” which lacks antecedent basis. There is no “basis of similarity” mentioned before this limitation in Claims 1 or 3. Therefore the claims are rejected.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4:
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim without curing any of the deficiencies.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1:
The claim recites an information processing apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitation classify a plurality of pieces of data including pieces of personal feature information, each of which is a piece of information indicating a feature of an individual, into groups on the basis of similarity of the pieces of information indicating the features amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of a memory is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of present one piece of data representing data included in the groups does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving information is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of receive input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving information is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of record the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because storing and retrieving data from memory is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The additional element of a memory is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of a processor is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, therefore does not amount to significantly more MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element of present one piece of data representing data included in the groups does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of receive input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of record the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. This claim further recites a description of the received information in the receive input information step and is ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1:
The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitation classifying a plurality of pieces of data including pieces of personal feature information, each of which is a piece of information indicating a feature of an individual, into groups on the basis of similarity of the pieces of information indicating the features amounts to a mental process as it can be performed in a human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The additional element of presenting one piece of data representing data included in the groups does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving information is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of receiving input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because receiving information is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of “mere data gathering” MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of recording the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because storing and retrieving data from memory is considered an insignificant extra solution activity of MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The additional element of presenting one piece of data representing data included in the groups does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of receiving input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
The additional element of recording the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received does not amount to significantly more because the additional element is an insignificant extra solution activity and further is a well understood routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 incorporates the rejection of Claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites a further additional element of using a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium which is a generic computer component amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosein et al . (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20200111574 A1), hereinafter “Hosein”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hosein teaches:
An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a memory(¶165, “software module may reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory…”); and
a processor coupled to the memory(¶165, “software module executed by a processor”) and configured to:
classify a plurality of pieces of data including pieces of personal feature information, each of which is a piece of information indicating a feature of an individual (¶10, “determining, by the profile classification component, based on at least a portion of the background information and the phenotypic measurement data, a profile classification”), into groups on the basis of similarity of the pieces of information indicating the features (Groups are profile classifications, ¶79, “based on an individual's sociodemographic data and severity of cardiovascular disease, the individual may be assigned to a profile classification associated with similarly situated individuals having the same or similar degree of cardiovascular symptoms”);
present one piece of data representing data included in the groups (Data is presented when selected to be transmitted to the profile classification component, ¶12, “the genetic data is selected from the group consisting of genotype data, structural variant data, sequence data, and combinations thereof” and “transmitting at least a portion of the genetic data to the profile classification component”);
receive input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented (Profile classification component receives information that indicates a feature, ¶12, “transmitting at least a portion of the genetic data to the profile classification component”); and
record the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received (¶12, “the data storage is operable to store a plurality of genetic data”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hosein teaches:
wherein the information received is associated with data classified into the same group as the data whose input of the information is received (Individuals with a given genetic data can be classified into the same group, ¶12, “classification for the individual is determined based on at least a portion of… the genetic data”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hosein teaches:
An information processing method, comprising:
classifying a plurality of pieces of data including pieces of personal feature information, each of which is a piece of information indicating a feature of an individual (¶10, “determining, by the profile classification component, based on at least a portion of the background information and the phenotypic measurement data, a profile classification”), into groups on the basis of similarity of the pieces of information indicating the features (Groups are profile classifications, ¶79, “based on an individual's sociodemographic data and severity of cardiovascular disease, the individual may be assigned to a profile classification associated with similarly situated individuals having the same or similar degree of cardiovascular symptoms”);
presenting one piece of data representing data included in the groups (Data is presented when selected to be transmitted to the profile classification component, ¶12, “the genetic data is selected from the group consisting of genotype data, structural variant data, sequence data, and combinations thereof” and “transmitting at least a portion of the genetic data to the profile classification component”);
receiving input of information that implicitly indicates a feature indicated by the personal feature information included in the data presented (Profile classification component receives information that indicates a feature, ¶12, “transmitting at least a portion of the genetic data to the profile classification component”); and
recording the data whose input of the information is received, in a storage unit, in association with the information received (¶12, “the data storage is operable to store a plurality of genetic data”).
Regarding Claim 4, Hosein teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (¶44, “computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE CHEN COULSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/JESSE C COULSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122