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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
There are references listed in the specification at [0003], [0170], and [0342]. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears that there is either a word missing or an extra “A” in line 4 between “With a health support device” and “that includes a blood sugar…” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraphs [0170] and [0342]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “judgement” in line 8 is spelled with the “e” in Claim 7, and the same word is spelled “judgment” in the remaining claims. While both acceptable spelling of the word, appropriate correction to choose either the “judgement” or “judgment” spelling for consistency is required.
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “refence” is misspelled in line 3 and should be “reference”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are:
“judgment unit” (“that judges”) in claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 23, 24
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0324] as “judgment unit C33” and [0333] and [0341] where “…the judgment unit C33…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”, as with a number of the other “units”. Optional processing systems at [0341] include “software…hardware…CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is no limitation on the type thereof.” The “judgment unit” is shown as generic box element “judgment unit 33” in figure 1.
“blood sugar level acquisition unit” in claim 1, 2, 7, 15, 23, 24
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0342] as “It is preferable that blood sugar unit C31 is a non-invasive blood sugar level tester”, and [0341] where “…the blood sugar level acquisition unit C31…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”, as with a number of the other “units”. Optional processing systems at [0341] include “software…hardware…CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is no limitation on the type thereof.” The “blood sugar level acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “blood sugar level acquisition unit 31” in figure 1.
“output unit” (“that outputs”) in claims 1, 2, 23, 24
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0343] with “The output unit C4…may be regarded as including or not including an output device such as a display or a speaker…can be realized using the driver software of the output device.” The “output unit” is shown as generic box element “output unit 4” in Figure 1.
“fluctuation information acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0029] and [0341] where “…the fluctuation information acquisition unit C32…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”, as with a number of the other “units”. Optional processing systems at [0341] include “software…hardware…CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is no limitation on the type thereof.” The “fluctuation information acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “fluctuation information acquisition unit 32” within the “processing unit 3” in figure 1.
“reference information storage unit” (“that stores”) in claim 3, 8
The claim limitation is interpreted according to paragraphs [0099] “part of storage unit 1” as “reference information storage unit 11”, [0104], [0267], [0268], and [0365] as “reference information storage unit C11”. The “reference information storage unit” is shown in Figure 1 as generic box element “reference information storage unit 11”, part of “storage unit 11”.
“past blood sugar level group storage unit” (“that stores”) in claim 4
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0269] and [0099] “part of storage unit 1” as “a past blood sugar level group storage unit 12”. The “past blood sugar level group storage unit” is shown in Figure 1 as generic box element “past blood sugar level group storage unit 12”, part of “storage unit 11”.
“suggestion information acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 6, 7, 10, 12
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0328] and [0341] where “…the suggestion information acquisition unit C34…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”, as with a number of the other “units”. Optional processing systems at [0341] include “software…hardware…CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is no limitation on the type thereof.” The “suggestion information acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “suggestion information acquisition unit C34” in Figure 9.
“suggestion information output unit” (“that outputs”) in claim 6
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0343] with “The…suggestion information output unit C41 may be regarded as including or not including an output device such as a display or a speaker…can be realized using the driver software of the output device.” The “suggestion information output unit” is shown as generic box element “suggestion information output unit C41” in Figure 9.
“environmental information acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 13
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0286] and [0341] where “…the environment information acquisition unit C30…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”, as with a number of the other “units”. Optional processing systems at [0341] include “software…hardware…CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is no limitation on the type thereof.” The “environment information acquisition unit” is shown as “environment information acquisition unit C30” in Figure 9.
“learning information storage unit” (“that stores”) in claim 15
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0057], [0431] as “learning information storage unit E711”, [0504], [0529], and [0522] as storage accessible by “program”. The “learning information storage unit” is shown as generic box element “learning information storage unit E711” that is part of “storage unit E71” in Figure 20.
“NIRS acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 15, 17, 18, 20
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0490], [0480], [0439] as including optionally a “hemoglobin measuring device” and “heart monitor” and “pulse wave meter”, [0079] as having “light emitting units” and “light receiving units”, and [0169] where the “processing unit” processing procedures “may be realized using software”, or “hardware”, as a “CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is not limitation on the type thereof”. The “NIRS acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “NIRS acquisition unit E63” that is part of “Processing Unit E73 in Figure 25.
“estimation unit” (“that uses…to acquire”) in claim 15, 17, 18
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0067], [0075], [0169] where the “processing unit” processing procedures “may be realized using software”, or “hardware”, as a “CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is not limitation on the type thereof”, and [0431]. The “estimation unit” is shown as generic box element “estimation unit E734” that is part of “Processing Unit E73 in Figure 25.
“user static attribute value acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 17, 21
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0431], [0464], [0470], and [0169] where the “processing unit” processing procedures “may be realized using software”, or “hardware”, as a “CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is not limitation on the type thereof”, The “user static attribute value acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “user static attribute value acquisition unit E732” that is part of “Processing Unit E73 in Figure 25.
“device characteristic value acquisition unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 18, 22,
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0471], [0466] as “device characteristic value acquisition unit E733”, and [0483] “the device characteristic value acquisition unit E733…can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like” and “may be realized using software”, or “hardware”, as a “CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is not limitation on the type thereof”. The “device characteristic value acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “device characteristic value acquisition unit E733” in Figure 25.
“training data forming unit” (“that forms”) in claim 20, 21, 22
This claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraphs [0555] as “training data forming unit G932”, [0561] as “various kinds of processing” as part of ‘learning processing unit G93”, and [0571], where “there is no limitation on the module that performs machine learning processing.” The “training data forming unit” is shown as generic block element “training data forming unit G932” as part of “Learning Processing Unit” G93 in Figure 30.
“learning unit” (“that acquires”) in claim 20
The claim limitation is interpreted according to Instant Specification paragraph [0569] and [0561] “the learning unit G933” as “various kinds of processing” as part of ‘learning processing unit G93”, and [0571], where “there is no limitation on the module that performs machine learning processing.” The “learning unit” is shown as generic block element “learning unit G933” as part of “Learning Processing Unit” G93 in Figure 30.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "an NIRS acquisition unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “NIRS acquisition unit” is the same as that previously recited in Claim 15, which is included in Claim 20. For the purposes of examination, the term "an NIRS acquisition unit" is deemed to claim "the NIRS acquisition unit".
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 - 24 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a recording medium, which can be considered either software per se or signals per se, which are not one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and the forthcoming 101 analysis regard Claim 24 is provided assuming that this amendment is made.
Regarding Claims 1, 15, 20, and 24 the claims recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 23, the claims recite "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of claims 1 – 24 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 24 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 24 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 24 recite (underlined are observations, judgments, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1
A health support device comprising:
a blood sugar level acquisition unit that acquires a blood sugar level of a user;
a judgment unit that judges whether or not blood sugar level-related information regarding the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined
PNG
media_image1.png
5
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
output condition to acquire a judgment result; and
an output unit that outputs blood sugar level information regarding the blood sugar level when the judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
Claim 15
A blood sugar level estimation device that acquires a blood sugar level that is to be acquired by the blood sugar level acquisition unit according to claim 1, comprising:
a learning information storage unit that stores learning information acquired using two or more pieces of training data that each include one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired using a reflected light of near- infrared light emitted to a human body and a blood sugar level;
an NIRS acquisition unit that acquires one or more pieces of NIRS information that can be acquired by emitting near-infrared light to a user and
an estimation unit that acquires an estimated blood sugar level, using one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the NIRS acquisition unit and the learning information.
Claim 20
A learning device that acquires learning information that is used by the blood sugar level estimation device according to claim 15, comprising:
an NIRS acquisition unit that, using reflected light of near-infrared light emitted from one or more light emitting units and received by one or more light receiving units, acquires one or more pieces of NIRS information regarding the reflected light;
a measured blood sugar level acquisition unit that acquires a blood sugar level of a user;
a training data forming unit that forms training data, using the one or more pieces of NIRS information and the blood sugar level; and
a learning unit that acquires learning information, using the training data.
Claim 23
A health support method that is realized using a blood sugar level acquisition unit, a judgment unit, and an output unit, comprising:
a blood sugar level acquisition step in which the blood sugar level acquisition unit acquires a blood sugar level of a user;
a judgment step in which the judgment unit judges whether or not the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined output condition; and
an output step in which the output unit outputs blood sugar level information regarding the blood sugar level when the judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
Claim 24
A recording medium having recorded thereon a program for enabling a computer to function as:
a blood sugar level acquisition unit that acquires a blood sugar level of a user;
a judgment unit that judges whether or not the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined output condition; and
an output unit that outputs blood sugar level information regarding the blood sugar level when the judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment of a blood sugar level of a user
Observation and judgment of whether or not blood sugar level-related information regarding the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined
PNG
media_image1.png
5
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
output condition to acquire a judgment result
Observation and judgment to communicate blood sugar level information regarding the blood sugar level when the observation and judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
Observation and judgment of one or more pieces of NIRS information that can be acquired by emitting near-infrared light to a user
Observation and judgment of an estimated blood sugar level, using one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the NIRS acquisition unit and the learning information.
Observation and judgment of one or more pieces of NIRS information regarding the reflected light, using reflected light of near-infrared light emitted from one or more light emitting units and received by one or more light receiving units
Observation and judgment of a blood sugar level of a user;
Observation and judgment to evaluate training data, using the one or more pieces of NIRS information and the blood sugar level
Observation and judgment of learning information, using the training data
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
Similarly, Dependent Claims 2 – 14, 16 – 19, and 21 - 22 include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
acquires a blood sugar level group constituted by two or more blood sugar levels of the user acquired in a time series,
Observation and judgment of a blood sugar level group constituted by two or more blood sugar levels of the user acquired in a time series,
acquires fluctuation information regarding blood sugar level fluctuations over time, using the blood sugar level group,
Observation and judgment of fluctuation information regarding blood sugar level fluctuations over time, using the blood sugar level group,
judges whether or not the fluctuation information satisfies a predetermined output condition, to acquire the judgment result
Observation and judgment whether or not the fluctuation information satisfies a predetermined output condition, to acquire the judgment result
outputs the fluctuation information when the judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
Observation and judgment to communicate the fluctuation information when the judgment result indicates that the output condition is satisfied.
uses the blood sugar level group and the reference information or the past blood sugar level group to acquire the fluctuation information.
Evaluates the blood sugar level group and the reference information and/or the past blood sugar level group to acquire the fluctuation information.
acquires fluctuation information regarding the warning when the judgment result indicates that the warning condition is satisfied.
Observation and judgment of fluctuation information regarding the warning when the judgment result indicates that the warning condition is satisfied.
judges whether or not blood sugar level- related information regarding the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined suggestion condition, to acquire a judgment result, and
Observation and judgment whether or not blood sugar level- related information regarding the blood sugar level satisfies a predetermined suggestion condition, to acquire a judgment result, and
acquires suggestion information when the judgment result indicates that the suggestion condition is satisfied
Observation and judgment of suggestion information when the judgment result indicates that the suggestion condition is satisfied
acquires a blood sugar level group constituted by two or more blood sugar levels of one user acquired in a time series on one day
Observation and judgment of a blood sugar level group constituted by two or more blood sugar levels of one user acquired in a time series on one day
acquires fluctuation information regarding blood sugar level fluctuations over time, using the blood sugar level group
Observation and judgment of fluctuation information regarding blood sugar level fluctuations over time, using the blood sugar level group
judges whether or not the fluctuation information satisfies the suggestion condition
Observation and judgment whether or not the fluctuation information satisfies the suggestion condition
acquires suggestion information corresponding to the fluctuation information when the judgment result indicates that the suggestion condition is satisfied.
Observation and judgment of suggestion information corresponding to the fluctuation information when the judgment result indicates that the suggestion condition is satisfied.
determines a suggestion condition that matches acquired blood sugar level-related information from a correspondence information storage unit that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information that each indicate a correspondence between a suggestion condition regarding blood sugar level related information and suggestion information or suggestion basis information that is a basis of suggestion information
Observation and judgment of a suggestion condition that matches acquired blood sugar level-related information from a correspondence information storage unit that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information that each indicate a correspondence between a suggestion condition regarding blood sugar level related information and suggestion information or suggestion basis information that is a basis of suggestion information
acquires suggestion information corresponding to the suggestion condition or suggestion information that uses suggestion basis information corresponding to the suggestion condition.
Observation and judgment of suggestion information corresponding to the suggestion condition or suggestion information that uses suggestion basis information corresponding to the suggestion condition.
uses the blood sugar level and other information other than the fluctuation information to judge whether or not the blood sugar level or the fluctuation information satisfies the suggestion condition.
Observation and judgment of the blood sugar level and other information other than the fluctuation information to judge whether or not the blood sugar level or the fluctuation information satisfies the suggestion condition.
uses the blood sugar level and other information other than the fluctuation information to acquire the suggestion information.
Observation and judgment of the blood sugar level and other information other than the fluctuation information to judge suggestion information.
acquires environment information regarding user environment,
Observation and judgment of environment information regarding user environment,
acquires fluctuation information that is a score corresponding to fluctuations over time of a blood sugar level, using the blood sugar level group.
Observation and judgment of fluctuation information that is a score corresponding to fluctuations over time of a blood sugar level, using the blood sugar level group.
acquires one or more pieces of NIRS information that can be acquired by emitting near-infrared light of two or more wavelengths to a user.
Observation and judgment of one or more pieces of NIRS information that can be acquired by emitting near-infrared light of two or more wavelengths to a user.
that acquires one or more user static attribute values of the user
Observation and judgment of one or more user static attribute values of the user
uses the one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the NIRS acquisition unit, the one or more user static attribute values acquired by the user static attribute value acquisition unit, and the learning information to acquire the estimated blood sugar level.
Observation and judgment of the one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the NIRS acquisition unit, the one or more user static attribute values acquired by the user static attribute value acquisition unit, and the learning information to evaluate the estimated blood sugar level.
acquires one or more device characteristic values of a device that is used to acquire one or more pieces of NIRS information of the user
Observation and judgment of one or more device characteristic values of a device that is used to acquire one or more pieces of NIRS information of the user
uses the one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the MRS acquisition unit, the one or more device characteristic values acquired by the device characteristic values acquisition unit, and the learning information to acquire the estimated blood sugar level.
Observation and judgment of the one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired by the MRS acquisition unit, the one or more device characteristic values acquired by the device characteristic values acquisition unit, and the learning information to evaluate the estimated blood sugar level.
acquires one or more pieces of NIRS information regarding the reflected light;
Observation and judgment of one or more pieces of NIRS information regarding the reflected light;
acquires a blood sugar level of a user
Observation and judgment of a blood sugar level of a user
forms training data, using the one or more pieces of NIRS information and the blood sugar level
Observation and judgment to evaluate training data, using the one or more pieces of NIRS information and the blood sugar level
acquires learning information, using the training data
Observation and judgment of learning information, using the training data
acquires one or more user static attribute values that are static attribute values of the user,
Observation and judgment of one or more user static attribute values that are static attribute values of the user,
uses the one or more pieces of NIRS information, the one or more user static attribute values, and the blood sugar level to form the training data.
Observation and judgment of the one or more pieces of NIRS information, the one or more user static attribute values, and the blood sugar level to evaluate the training data.
acquires one or more device characteristic values of a device that includes the one or more light receiving units and the one or more light transmitting units,
Observation and judgment of one or more device characteristic values of a device that includes the one or more light receiving units and the one or more light transmitting units,
uses the one or more pieces of NIRS information, the one or more device characteristic values, and the blood sugar level to form the training data.
Observation and judgment of the one or more pieces of NIRS information, the one or more device characteristic values, and the blood sugar level to evaluate the training data.
all of which are grouped as mental processes under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“blood sugar level acquisition unit”
“judgment unit”
“output unit”
“fluctuation information acquisition unit”
“reference information storage unit”
“past blood sugar level group storage unit”
“suggestion information acquisition unit”
“suggestion information output unit”
“environmental information acquisition unit”
“learning information storage unit”
“NIRS acquisition unit”
“estimation unit”
“user static attribute value acquisition unit”
“device characteristic value acquisition unit
“measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”
“training data forming unit”
“learning unit”
“recording medium”
Additional elements recited include an “blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “judgment unit”, “output unit”, “fluctuation information acquisition unit”, “reference information storage unit”, “past blood sugar level group storage unit”, “suggestion information acquisition unit”, “suggestion information output unit”, “environmental information acquisition unit”, “learning information storage unit”, “NIRS acquisition unit”, “estimation unit”, “user static attribute value acquisition unit”, “device characteristic value acquisition unit”, “measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “training data forming unit”, “learning unit”, and “recording medium” in the Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 their dependent claims. These component are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a generic blood sugar level acquisition unit performing a generic function of acquiring blood sugar levels (the acquiring). These generic hardware component limitations for “blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “judgment unit”, “output unit”, “fluctuation information acquisition unit”, “reference information storage unit”, “past blood sugar level group storage unit”, “suggestion information acquisition unit”, “suggestion information output unit”, “environmental information acquisition unit”, “learning information storage unit”, “NIRS acquisition unit”, “estimation unit”, “user static attribute value acquisition unit”, “device characteristic value acquisition unit”, “measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “training data forming unit”, “learning unit”, and “recording medium” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
a learning information storage unit that stores learning information acquired using two or more pieces of training data that each include one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired using a reflected light of near- infrared light emitted to a human body and a blood sugar level;
In addition the aforementioned extra-solution activity limitations in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24, additional extra-solution activity limitations recited in Dependent Claims 2 – 14, 16 – 19, and 21 - 22 include:
a reference information storage unit that stores reference information regarding a refence blood sugar level,
a past blood sugar level group storage unit that stores a past blood sugar level group constituted by two or more past blood sugar levels of the user,
wherein the output condition is a warning condition for outputting a warning,
a suggestion information output unit that outputs the suggestion information.
wherein the other information is the environmental information.
a learning information storage unit that stores learning information acquired using two or more pieces of training data that each include one or more pieces of NIRS information acquired using a reflected light of near- infrared light emitted to a human body and a blood sugar level;
wherein the training data includes one or more pieces of NIRS information that can be acquired by emitting near-infrared light of two or more wavelengths to a human body,
wherein the training data includes one or more user static attribute values that are static attribute values of a person with the human body,
wherein the training data includes one or more device characteristic values that are characteristic values of a device that is used to acquire the one or more pieces of NIRS information,
wherein the learning information is a learning model acquired through machine learning processing using the two or more pieces of training data.
an NIRS acquisition unit that, using reflected light of near-infrared light emitted from one or more light emitting units and received by one or more light receiving units,
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “judgment unit”, “output unit”, “fluctuation information acquisition unit”, “reference information storage unit”, “past blood sugar level group storage unit”, “suggestion information acquisition unit”, “suggestion information output unit”, “environmental information acquisition unit”, “learning information storage unit”, “NIRS acquisition unit”, “estimation unit”, “user static attribute value acquisition unit”, “device characteristic value acquisition unit”, “measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “training data forming unit”, “learning unit”, and “recording medium” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 and their dependent claims are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 24 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “judgment unit”, “output unit”, “fluctuation information acquisition unit”, “reference information storage unit”, “past blood sugar level group storage unit”, “suggestion information acquisition unit”, “suggestion information output unit”, “environmental information acquisition unit”, “learning information storage unit”, “NIRS acquisition unit”, “estimation unit”, “user static attribute value acquisition unit”, “device characteristic value acquisition unit”, “measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “training data forming unit”, “learning unit”, and “recording medium” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 15, 20, 23, and 24 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “judgment unit”, “output unit”, “fluctuation information acquisition unit”, “reference information storage unit”, “past blood sugar level group storage unit”, “suggestion information acquisition unit”, “suggestion information output unit”, “environmental information acquisition unit”, “learning information storage unit”, “NIRS acquisition unit”, “estimation unit”, “user static attribute value acquisition unit”, “device characteristic value acquisition unit”, “measured blood sugar level acquisition unit”, “training data forming unit”, “learning unit”, and “recording medium” Claims 1 - 24, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “blood sugar level acquisition unit” is described generically in [0342] as a “non-invasive blood sugar level tester” that can also be [0341] “typically realized as a processor, a memory, or the like”. The “blood sugar level acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “blood sugar level acquisition unit 31” in figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “judgment unit” is described generically in [0341] as “typically realized as a processor, a memory, or the like”. The “judgment unit” is shown as generic box element “judgment unit 33” in figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “output unit” is described generically in [0343] as either having or not having an “output device such as a display” and “can be realized using…driver software of the output device.” The “output unit” is shown as generic box element “output unit 4” in Figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “fluctuation information acquisition unit” is described generically in [0341] as “can be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”. The “fluctuation information acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “fluctuation information acquisition unit 32” in figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “reference information storage unit” is described as a generic storage in [0099], [0104], and [0365], as part of generic “storage unit 11”. The “reference information storage unit” is shown in Figure 1 as generic box element “reference information storage unit 11”, part of “storage unit 11”.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “past blood sugar level group storage unit” is described generically in described as a generic storage in [0099] and [0269], as part of generic “storage unit 11”. The “past blood sugar level group storage unit” is shown in Figure 1 as generic box element “past blood sugar level group storage unit 12”, part of “storage unit 11”.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “suggestion information acquisition unit” is described generically in [0341] that it “can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”. The “suggestion information acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “suggestion information acquisition unit C34” in Figure 9.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, “suggestion information output unit” is described generically in [0343] as either having or not having an “output device such as a display” and “can be realized using…driver software of the output device.” The “suggestion information output unit” is shown as generic box element “suggestion information output unit C41” in Figure 9.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “environmental information acquisition unit” is described generically in [0341] that it “can typically be realized using a processor, a memory, or the like”. The “environment information acquisition unit” is shown as “environment information acquisition unit C30” in Figure 9.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “learning information storage unit” is described generically in [0079] as ha== storage accessible by “program”. The “learning information storage unit” is shown as generic box element “learning information storage unit E711” that is part of generic “storage unit E71” in Figure 20.
Per Applicant’s specification, as described above in the 112(f) interpretation, the “NIRS acquisition unit” is described generically in [0079] as having “light emitting units” and “light receiving units”, and [0169] where the “processing unit” processing procedures “may be realized using software”, or “hardware”, as a “CPU, an MPU, a GPU, or the like, and there is not limitation on the type thereof”. The “NIRS acquisition unit” is shown as generic box element “NIRS acquisition unit E63” that is part of “Process