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 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.
It is noted that the “aggregation means” of claim 13 is an element of a computer processing unit (as discussed with regard to Figures 4A, 4B, 7, 13, and 14 of the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure fails to provide support for dynamically updating at least one machine learning model with at least one evaluation result.
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 9-13 and 15 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 claim 9, the phrase “the training data” in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “a plurality of training data”. To which of the plurality of training data is “the training data” referring? For examination purposes, the phrase “the training data” is being interpreted as “each training data”. Use of the phrase “the blood information” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the blood information in the database is the same as or different than the blood information calculated by the system. For examination purposes, the phrase is being interpreted as “reference blood information”. Furthermore, the phrase “the blood information for the evaluation data” in lines 8-9 is being interpreted as “blood information for the evaluation data”, and the phrase “the blood information” in line 10 is being interpreted as “the calculated blood information”. Further regarding claim 14, it is unclear what is meant by “generates additional information indicating a feature regarding biometric information of the user for the additional data” (emphasis added). In particular, it is unclear what “for the additional data” means in the context of the claim. It is also unclear what the additional information indicating a feature regarding biometric information is. A reading of the specification, particularly with respect to Figure 9, has failed to provide clarity. Clarification is requested. The phrase “the preliminary evaluation data” in line 15 lacks proper antecedent basis. The phrase “the plurality of pieces of attribute-based classification information” in lines 16-17 lacks proper antecedent basis. The period at the end of line 18 makes it unclear as to whether the end of claim 9 is line 18 or line 24. The phrase “the classification information includes a plurality of pieces of attribute-based classification information calculated using the mutually different training data” also renders the claim indefinite. First, the phrase “the mutually different training data” lacks proper antecedent basis. Second, it is unclear how pieces of attribute-based classification information are calculated. According to the specification, the pieces of attribute-based classification information are gender, age, and exercise content; how are these parameters “calculated” using training data?
Regarding claim 10, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for the phrase “the mutually different evaluation data”. For examination purposes, the phrase is being interpreted as “mutually different evaluation data”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 9 recites that the evaluation result is based on the blood information, and that the blood information is based on the evaluation data. In combination with claim 9, claim 11 recites that the evaluation result is based on the glucose level, which itself is based on the evaluation data; the evaluation result is based on both the glucose level and the evaluation data used to calculate the glucose level. It is therefore unclear what further limitation “the at least one computing device generates the evaluation result based on the evaluation data and the blood glucose level calculated from the evaluation data” provides. Furthermore, as claim 9 was amended to recite “at least one evaluation result”, the phrase “the evaluation result” in claim 11 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a plurality of the features regarding the blood composition calculated from the mutually different evaluation data” renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “a plurality of the features regarding the blood composition” lacks proper antecedent basis, as does the phrase “the mutually different evaluation data”. For examination purposes, the phrase is being interpreted as “a plurality of features regarding the blood composition calculated from mutually different evaluation data”. Furthermore, as claim 9 was amended to recite “at least one evaluation result”, the phrase “the evaluation result” in claim 12 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “on a plurality of the feature data” lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase is being interpreted as “a plurality of feature data”. Furthermore, as claim 9 was amended to recite “at least one evaluation result”, the phrase “the evaluation result” in claim 15 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, the addition of dynamically updating the at least one machine learning model with the at least one evaluation result has overcome the rejection.
With regard to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as discussed in paragraph 7 above, indefiniteness issues remain within the claims.
With regard to the previous rejections of the claims in view of cited prior art, it is noted that during the interview held on 11 September 2025, the Examiner indicated that adding the subject matter from previously examined claims 14 and 16 to claim 9 would overcome the prior art rejections because the indefiniteness issues within the claims precluded a proper prior art search from being performed. As the current amendments add the subject matter from previously examined claims 14 and 16 to claim 9 without changes to the language, and because the filed remarks have not explained why the subject matter is definite, as with the previous examination, a proper prior art search of the claimed invention was not able to be performed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Menon et al.’085 (US Pub No. 2019/0192085 – previously cited) discloses a biometric information computing system that calculates blood information regarding blood of a user (see paragraph 9 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed out 02 July 2025). Ray et al.’445 (US Pub No. 2010/0332445 – previously cited) teaches providing an evaluation result that includes blood glucose spike information so that a warning message may be provided to a user when significant increases or decreases in fasting glucose levels are detected (section [0062]). Romesburg’200 (US Pub No. 2018/0008200 – previously cited) teaches using a pulse wave signal acquired from a subject to determine oxygen uptake and other blood information associated with an athletic performance (section [0040]). Ferber et al.’040 (US Pub No. 2018/0085040 – previously cited) teaches selecting an appropriate calculating means for blood information of a subject based on pieces of attribute-based classification information (section [0303]). Kwon et al.’413 (US Pub No. 2018/0177413 – previously cited) teaches selecting an appropriate calculating means for blood information of a subject based on pieces of attribute-based classification information (section [0109]).
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 ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights