DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the determination of a health level based on the bioelectrical impedance of one or more body parts. This limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a health level determination section. Accordingly, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to recite any further application of the determination of the health level. The recitation of the health level determination section is merely a recitation of a processor at a high-level of generality, and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the recitation of a generic processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The recitation of a bioelectrical impedance acquisition section is merely the recitation of elements in an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-20 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 recites a health level determination section that is configured to determine a health level of the user “based at least partially, indirectly or directly, on the bioelectrical impedance”. It’s not clear what the difference between the determination based “indirectly or directly” comprises.
Claims 3, 19, and 20 has similar issues.
As to claim 3, the claim recites that the health level determination section is configured to determine the health level based on the body compositions. As the body composition is estimated from the bioelectrical impedances, it is unclear whether the health level determination section is using only the body compositions to determine the health level, or uses both the health level and the bioelectrical impedance levels to determine the health level, as recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 has similar issues as claim 3 above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-11, 13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Komada et al. (US 2004/0220492).
As to claims 1 and 19, Komada teaches a health level determination system comprising: a bioelectrical impedance acquisition section (22) that is configured to acquire one or more bioelectrical impedance ([0064]) of one or more body parts of a user ([0105]); and a health level determination section ([0015] – judgment unit) that is configured to determine a health level of the user based at least partially, indirectly or directly, on the bioelectrical impedance of the one or more body parts ([0019]). The CPU for calculating ([0064]) inherently runs on programming.
As to claim 2, Komada teaches the health level determination section is configured to determine the health level of the user based at least partially, directly, on the bioelectrical impedance of the one or more body parts ([0019])
As to claim 3, Komada teaches a body composition estimation section (23) that is configured to estimate a plurality of body compositions of the user from the bioelectrical impedances of the one or more body parts ([0064]), wherein the health level determination section is configured to determine the health level of the user based, at least partially, indirectly or directly, on the plurality of body compositions ([0019]).
As to claim 4, Komada teaches a medical checkup result estimation section (23) that is configured to estimate a plurality of medical checkup results of the user from the plurality of body compositions ([0019] – creating an index for each portion), wherein the health level determination section is configured to determine the health level of the user based at least partially on the plurality of medical checkup results (Fig. 3 – S23; [0139] – total assessment).
As to claim 7, Komada teaches each of the plurality of medical checkup results has a significant correlation with the plurality of body compositions ([0080]).
As to claim 10, Komada teaches the health level determination section is configured to determine whether the user is healthy, unhealthy, or indeterminate (Fig. 12 – where the total assessment can be categorized as above).
As to claim 11, Komada teaches the health level determination section is configured to determine whether the user is healthy, unhealthy, or indeterminate (Fig. 12 – where the total assessment can be categorized as above).
As to claim 13, Komada teaches the health level determination section is configured to determine whether the user is healthy, unhealthy, or indeterminate (Fig. 12 – where the total assessment can be categorized as above).
As to claims 17-18, Komada teaches an output section (7) that is configured to output the result of the determination of the health level ([0139]), wherein the output section is configured to display the result of the determination by pointing to the result of the determination on a clock-like graphic (Fig. 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8-9, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komada et al. (US 2004/0220492) in view of Hsieh et al. (US 2011/0112428).
As to claim 5, Komada does not explicitly teach that the medical checkup result estimation section is configured to estimate the plurality of medical checkup results of the user from the plurality of body compositions using an inference model. However, it does note that in addition to the measured impedance, it incorporates other data such as body weight and height, waist size, or clothing sizing could be used in the assessment ([0145]). Hsieh teaches a device for measuring body composition using a bioelectric impedance analysis associated with a neural network algorithm ([0002]; a type of inference model) which incorporates such anthropometry variables such as age, height, weight ([0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Komada with Hsieh to utilize a known inferential model to incorporate additional variables in determining body composition as it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 6, Komada does not explicitly teach that the health level determination section (505, 56) is configured to determine the health level of the user based at least partially on the plurality of medical checkup results using an inference model. However, it does note that in addition to the measured impedance, it incorporates other data such as body weight and height, waist size, or clothing sizing could be used in the assessment ([0145]). Hsieh teaches a device for measuring body composition using a bioelectric impedance analysis associated with a neural network algorithm ([0002]; a type of inference model) which incorporates such anthropometry variables such as age, height, weight ([0018]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Komada with Hsieh to utilize a known inferential model to incorporate additional variables in determining body composition as it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 8, Komada teaches each of the plurality of medical checkup results has a significant correlation with the plurality of body compositions ([0080]).
As to claim 9, Komada teaches each of the plurality of medical checkup results has a significant correlation with the plurality of body compositions ([0080]).
As to claim 12, Komada teaches the health level determination section is configured to determine whether the user is healthy, unhealthy, or indeterminate (Fig. 12 – where the total assessment can be categorized as above).
As to claim 16, Komoda teaches an additional information acquisition section (6) that is configured to request an input of additional information ([0067]). It fails to teach that this requested data was not used to determine the health level when the result of the determination is indeterminate, wherein the health level determination section is further configured to determine the health level using the additional information. However, Komada does note that in addition to the above, additional parameters such as waist size, size of clothing, or size of underwear can be used to provide more precise assessment ([0145]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious, if not necessarily inherent, that such request for data be made only when the determination results in neither ideal nor unhealthy, as they may require additional measurements not immediately available to the user.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komada et al. (US 2004/0220492).
As to claims 14-15, Komoda teaches an additional information acquisition section (6) that is configured to request an input of additional information ([0067]). It fails to teach that this requested data was not used to determine the health level when the result of the determination is indeterminate, wherein the health level determination section is further configured to determine the health level using the additional information. However, Komada does note that in addition to the above, additional parameters such as waist size, size of clothing, or size of underwear can be used to provide more precise assessment ([0145]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious, if not necessarily inherent, that such request for data be made only when the determination results in neither ideal nor unhealthy, as they may require additional measurements not immediately available to the user.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komada et al. (US 2004/0220492) in view of Turgiss et al. (US 2006/0287883).
As to claim 20, Komada teaches a health level determination system comprising: a bioelectrical impedance acquisition section (22) that is configured to acquire one or more bioelectrical impedance ([0064]) of one or more body parts of a user ([0105]); and a health level determination section ([0015] – judgment unit) that is configured to determine a health level of the user based at least partially, indirectly or directly, on the bioelectrical impedance of the one or more body parts ([0019]). The CPU for calculating ([0064]) inherently runs on programming. It does not teach the system comprises a server. Turgiss teaches a system which monitors user parameters such as body compositions at a server (Abstract). It would have been obvious to modify Komada with Turgiss such that multiple users could be monitored at a single station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-3:30 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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
CHRISTIAN JANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTIAN JANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 6/1/26
Prosecution Insights