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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-7 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.
With regards to Claims 1, 6, and 7, the limitation “a step of determining, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information, an object to be measured that the measurer is instructed to measure” is indefinite. The meaning of the limitation is unclear regarding what the determination is based on: object to be measured, the measurement environment information, the measurement-allowed measurement environment information. It also unclear why the feature after “the measurement-allowed measurement environment information” such as “an object to be measured” is repeated again? What is the difference between “measurement environment information” and “the measurement-allowed measurement environment information”? How the determination that is made based on the object to be measured (i.e. known object, following the language, emphasis added) eventually determines again that this very object to be measured? The claim is missing essential features to distinguish (see further 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below).
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner interpreted the limitation as “a step of determining, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information, a suitable situation when based on the environmental conditions the measurer can start measuring following a corresponding instruction to measure”.
With regards to Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, the feature “in which a measurer is allowed to make a measurement with an odor sensor” is indefinite as it is unclear what this allowability refers to: ability to the measurements, authority to do measurements, readiness to do measurement at a particular time/condition, access to a measurement site/layout, etc.
The feature is examined as satisfying any option discussed above to proceed with measurements.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are steps described in the specification as published in [0124, 0125, 0127] such as matching acquired information and measurement environment in which a measurement can be made.
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 1-7 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 1-7 recite an abstract idea of determining a vehicle insurance for a driver based on the driver’s qualification.
With regards to representative Claim 6, the claim recites:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring an object to be measured and measurement environment information and information about a measurement environment in which a measurer is allowed to make a measurement with an odor sensor;
determining, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information, an object to be measured that the measurer is instructed to measure;
instructing the measurer to measure the determined object to be measured; and
outputting a reward to the measurer when odor data of the instructed object to be measured is acquired.
The above highlighted in bold limitations comprise a process (statutory subject matter category, Step 1, MPEP 2106.03) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls into abstract idea exceptions as identified by the courts. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, under the Step 2A, Prong One, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
The mental step (determining, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information, an object to be measured that the measurer is instructed to measure, and instructing the measurer to measure the determined object to be measured) represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses the user manually making an observation and corresponding decision/judgement to issue an instruction to proceed with measurements based on available information.
Alternatively/additionally this process steps fall into an abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity—- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). Such organizing human activity comprises, for example, activity of rewarding odor measurement participants.
The examiner concluded that this judicial exceptions discussed above are not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A analysis under Prong Two) based on the following analysis.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
However, in the above claim, there is/are no additional element(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For example, steps of “acquiring an object to be measured and measurement environment information and information about a measurement environment in which a measurer is allowed to make a measurement with an odor sensor” and “outputting a reward to the measurer after an acquisition of odor data of the instructed object to be measured” are examples of generically recited extra-solution activity that does not meaningfully limits the exception. The step of instructing the measurer to measure the determined object to be measured represents an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not meaningfully limits the exception.
The processor (Claim 1) and a non-transitory storage medium (Claim 7) are generic computer components that do not reflect an improvement in functioning of a computer and are not qualified for particular machines. The odor sensor (data acquisition step) is recited at a high level of generality only adds insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the above claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, under the Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception based on prior art of record.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims are not patent eligible because they do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These dependent claims just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim(s) (Claims 2-5, Step 2A, Prong 1) without reciting additional elements that are meaningfully limit the abstract idea and incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), while the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenichi Hashizume et al. (US 20190227042), hereinafter ‘HASHIZUME’ in view of R. Mori (JP 2016181828), hereinafter ‘Mori” (machine translation is attached-submitted in the IDS dated 2/27/2023.
With regards to Claim 1, Hashizume discloses
An information processing device (An odor measurement apparatus, Abstract) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory (The odor measurement apparatus 1 includes an arithmetic processing device 51 (CPU) and a storage device 52 (memory) therein [0043]) and execute the instructions (the arithmetic processing device 51 to execute the program [0079]) to:
acquire an object to be measured and measurement environment information and information about a measurement environment in which a measurer is allowed to make a measurement with an odor sensor (it is possible to acquire attribute data such as location information, air temperature/humidity information, air pressure information, or illuminance information stored in the storage device in association with each other together with the odor data and the image data. In this way, the attribute information of the odor data is enriched, and the odor data can be classified, organized, and managed in more detail [0023]; it is possible to receive, store, and manage the attribute data as mentioned above such as the location information, the air temperature/humidity information, the air pressure information, or the illuminance information [0027]);
determine, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information, an object to be measured that the measurer is instructed to measure (in a case in which an adsorption characteristic of an odor substance with respect to a substance adsorption membrane 13 changes due to an influence of the air temperature or humidity, it is possible to more appropriately evaluate the odor data by grasping the condition of the air temperature and humidity at the time of odor measurement [0053]; When the air temperature and humidity at the time of odor measurement are measured by the thermo-hygrometer 42 and stored in the storage device 52 in association with odor data, it is possible to make the odor data more useful. For example, in a case in which an adsorption characteristic of an odor substance with respect to a substance adsorption membrane 13 changes due to an influence of the air temperature or humidity, it is possible to more appropriately evaluate the odor data by grasping the condition of the air temperature and humidity at the time of odor measurement [0054]);
Hashizume also discloses measuring the determined object, implying following instruction to measure the determined object to be measured (The arithmetic processing device 51 is connected to each detector 15 of the odor sensor 10 to acquire measurement data measured by each detector 15 wherein an odor substance is adsorbed to each substance adsorption membrane 13 [0080]; When a user starts a control application executed based on the control program P1 and presses a measurement start button on an initial screen to start measurement [0088]).
However, Hashizume is silent about outputting a reward to the measurer after an acquisition of odor data of the instructed object to be measured.
Mori discloses outputting a reward to the measurer after an acquisition of odor data of the instructed object to be measured (“Points to be given” indicates points given to the measuring device 20 when the measured value of the environmental information related to the protected person is acquired, p.4; In FIG. 7, the “point” column stores the total number of points given to the measurement apparatus. The “point” column in FIG. 7 is updated by processing of a point calculation unit 313, p.5).
Mori also discloses determining, based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information, an object to be measured (when the measurement condition can be confirmed on the management server 30 side like the current time, it is determined whether the measurement condition is satisfied on the management server 30 side, and if not, the measurement request is not transmitted, p.8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume in view of Mori to output/reward users properly measuring odor (The points are used, for example, to give incentives to the owner of the measuring device 20 such that the usage fee of the measuring device 20 is discounted or money is given according to the given points, Mori, p.4) by accounting on environmental information as discussed in Hahizume [0053].
With regards to Claim 2, Hashizume further discloses that environmental conditions affect accuracy of odor measurements [0053].
However, Hashizume does not specifically disclose determining whether the measurement environment information and measurement environment information at a time of measuring the object to be measured satisfy a predetermined condition; and output the reward when the condition is satisfied.
Mori discloses proceeding to measuring the object when measurement environment information and measurement environment information at a time of measuring the object to be measured satisfy a predetermined condition (“acquire information regarding the measurement condition, and only when the acquired information satisfies the measurement condition”, p.8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume in view of Mori to predictably output the reward only when the predetermined condition and thus accuracy of the measurements is satisfied.
In regards to Claim 4, Hashizume further discloses acquiring an image including the measurable object to be measured, and wherein determine an object to be measured that the measurer is instructed to measure based on the object to be measured and the measurement environment information, and the image and the measurement-allowed measurement environment information (When the illuminance (light amount) at the time of odor measurement is measured by the illuminometer 47 and stored in the storage device 52 in association with the odor data, it is possible to make the odor data more useful. By grasping the condition of the illuminance (light amount), image data can be corrected so that an imaging object is more easily recognized [0055]; …various data (hereinafter referred to as attribute data) other than odor data associated with odor data extracted by the extracting means M3 as a search result. Specific examples of the attribute data can include image data … air temperature and humidity data [0100]).
With regards to Claims 6 and 7, Hashizume in view of Mori discloses the claimed limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
In addition, with regards to Claim 7, Hashizume discloses a (non-transitory) storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a program (the odor measurement apparatus 1 can be controlled by an arithmetic processing device 61 executing a control program P1 stored in a storage device 62 [0086]).
Claim 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume in view of Mori, and further in view of Masahiro Sato et al. (US 20210072828), hereinafter ‘Sato’.
With regards to Claim 3, Hashizume discloses that environment may change and following the change, more accurate measurement would be obtained when the environmental conditions are followed [0053].
However, Hashizume is silent about instructing a change in a measurement environment; and output a reward to the measurer when odor data of the instructed object to be measured in information about the changed measurement environment is acquired.
Sato discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: instructing a change in a measurement environment (the processor 24 operates the device 16, by transmitting operation information indicating the operation contents determined based on the environment around the plurality of users whose biopotential information is measured to the device 16 … For example, an air conditioner that changes the temperature the user or the surroundings of the user, an electric fan that sends wind to the user or the surroundings of the user, and the like are devices that execute operation contents that affect the state of the living body. The environment around the plurality of users is measured by the environment information measuring device 14. For example, the environment information measuring device 14 measures the temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, odor [0100-0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume in view of Mori, and Sato to predictably output a reward to the measurer when odor data of the instructed object to be measured in information about the changed measurement environment is acquired to be able to collect accurate (odor) data corresponding to the change in the environment.
With regards to Claim 5, Hashizume discloses store odor data and measurement environment information when the odor data is acquired (it is possible to acquire attribute data such as location information, air temperature/humidity information, air pressure information, or illuminance information stored in the storage device in association with each other together with the odor data and the image data. [0023]). Hashizume also discloses an arithmetic processor [0043].
Hashizume in view of Mori discloses rewarding of a measurer as discussed above.
However, Hashizume is silent about determine the reward based on a statistic of the measurement environment information when the odor data is acquired.
Sato discloses determining a statistic of the measurement environment information when the data is acquired (The processor 24 calculates, for example, the average value of the body temperature, the average value of the blood pressure, the average value of the pulse, and the average value of the amounts sweat of a plurality of users, and sets the performance level of the air conditioner to the performance level for the combination of the average values by transmitting operation information indicating the performance level for the combination of these average values to the air conditioner [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashizume in view of Mori, and Sato to use a statistic of the measurement environment information when the odor data is acquired to objectively determine the reward of the measurer based on a calculated statistic such as data average of the odor measurements and a corresponding environment condition as known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863