DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-8 and 13-14 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.
Claims 1 and 13-14 recite the limitation "the growth prediction AI model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-14 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 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
In regard to Claims 1, 9, and 13-14, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity; and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment which has held by the CAFC to be abstract in, e.g., Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp (2023-2437; 4/18/25), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] method comprising:
acquiring first data corresponding to body information data including gender, height, and weight of infants or children, and storing the first data […];
acquiring second data corresponding to physical activity data for the infants or the children, and storing the second data […];
normalizing and categorizing the first and second data;
predicting a degree of obesity after n months through a growth curve of the growth prediction Al model based on the normalized first and second data;
reacquiring the first and second data after the n months and storing the reacquired first and second date […];
training the growth prediction Al model based on the predicted degree of obesity and the reacquired first data;
predicting a degree of obesity after m months through the trained growth prediction Al model; and
analyzing a risk metric of obesity based on the predicted degree of obesity.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a database, a terminal, a server, and/or a non-transitory computer readable storage device storing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, a memory, and/or a processor, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a database, a terminal, a server, and/or a non-transitory computer readable storage device storing instructions embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, a memory, and/or a processor, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., p55-58 in Applicant’s PGPUB.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20250087326 A1 by Seong (“Seong”).
In regard to Claim 1, Seong teaches a method comprising:
acquiring first data corresponding to body information data including gender, height, and weight of infants or children, and storing the first data in a database;
(see, e.g., p50-53; F8, S100);
acquiring second data corresponding to physical activity data for the infants or the children, and storing the second data in the database;
(see, e.g., p50 (“body mass index (BMI), basal metabolic rate”); F8, S100);
normalizing and categorizing the first and second data;
(see, e.g., F8, 310-330 in regard to classifying growth stage based on the physical information and then extracting that information based on that growth stage (“normalizing”), see, e.g., definition of “normalize”, “to make (something) conform to or reduce (something) to a norm or standard”; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normalize);
predicting a degree of obesity after n months through a growth curve of the growth prediction Al model based on the normalized first and second data;
(see, e.g., F8, S370);
reacquiring the first and second data after the n months and storing the reacquired first and second date in the database or a second database;
(see, e.g., p50-53);
training the growth prediction Al model based on the predicted degree of obesity and the reacquired first data;
(see, e.g., p105-108);
predicting a degree of obesity after m months through the trained growth prediction Al model; and
(see, e.g., F5 and F8, 370);
analyzing a risk metric of obesity based on the predicted degree of obesity
(see, e.g., F8, 390).
In regard to Claims 2-3, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p103-108.
In regard to Claim 4, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p50-53.
In regard to Claims 5-7, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p76-78.
In regard to Claim 8, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p50-53.
In regard to Claim 9, Seong teaches these limitations. See rejection of Claim 1 and, e.g., p121.
In regard to Claims 10-11, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p103-108.
In regard to Claim 12, Seong teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p76-78.
In regard to Claims 13-14, Seong teaches these limitations. See rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715