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 Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the Claims 5 and 7 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“the user attaches the chest-worn device to their chest”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the living space". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each key furniture item". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding latitude and longitude". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user’s orientation when using the key furniture item". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“the chest-worn device integrates the user’s movements”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“uses a state machine”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“then broadcasts”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the relevant information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“synchronously detects…broadcasts”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the outside". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the outside". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 includes the limitation of “especially for users who eat spontaneously” and it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation are.
Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“receives…analyzes and records…analyzes”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“utilizes…combines”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“follows the default process as follows”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“a detailed procedure”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 11 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“sends…pushes…then analyzed”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cloud". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the restaurant’s behavior". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the server or cloud". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is directed to an apparatus (a “human behavior recognition system”) and a method step of using that apparatus (“performs analysis and computation…are actively reminded”) and is thereby indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
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 1-12 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 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being, and/or a method of organizing human activity.
In regard to Claim 1, 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); and/or 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, in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a] human behavior recognition [method] comprising [receiving first data regarding the] movements [of a user]; [receiving second data regarding] latitude, longitude, and altitude coordinates [of points in space], the area name where [the points are located], and the name of each key furniture item within the area […] the corresponding latitude and longitude, and the user's orientation when using the key furniture item; […] integrat[ing] the [first data] with the [second data] and us[ing an algorithm] to perform direct calculations, thereby accurately recognizing the user's behavior; [and] broadcast[ing] the relevant information it has acquired.
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, and/or a method of organizing human activity.
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., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software programmed to employ a state machine and executing on a computer processor; a chest-worn device and an IOT system, wherein the chest-worn device includes a nine-axis inertial motion unit (IMU), a barometer, a wireless communication module, and a microprocessor; the IOT system comprising beacons and/or nodes; biomimetic non-gel self-adhesive backing or Velcro; signal detection wristband; a wireless camera or recording device; a wearable camera; the IOT device comprising a router, gateway and server; employing PDR; a mobile device; furniture; a table mounted-camera; and/or an intelligent speaker; 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., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software programmed to employ a state machine and executing on a computer processor; a chest-worn device and an IOT system, wherein the chest-worn device includes a nine-axis inertial motion unit (IMU), a barometer, a wireless communication module, and a microprocessor; the IOT system comprising beacons and/or nodes; biomimetic non-gel self-adhesive backing or Velcro; signal detection wristband; a wireless camera or recording device; a wearable camera; the IOT device comprising a router, gateway and server; employing PDR; a mobile device; furniture; a table mounted-camera; and/or an intelligent speaker; 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., F5 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same in regard to embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer software programmed to employ a state machine and executing on a computer processor; see, e.g., p74 in regard to a chest-worn device comprising a nine-axis inertial motion unit (IMU), a barometer, a wireless communication module, and a microprocessor; see, e.g., p24 in regard to an IOT system comprising beacons and/or nodes, a router, gateway and server; see, e.g., p17-18 in regard to biomimetic non-gel self-adhesive backing or Velcro; see, e.g., p20 in regard to a signal detection wristband; see, e.g., p13 and 25 in regard to a wireless camera or recording device; see, e.g., p13 and 25 in regard to a wearable camera; see, e.g., p66 in regard to employing PDR; see, e.g., p55 in regard to a mobile device; see, e.g., p53 in regard to furniture; see e.g., p25 in regard to a table mounted-camera; and/or see, e.g., p27 in regard to an intelligent speaker.
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