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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, has been reviewed and are addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-14-26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Arguments
Applicants amendments filed on 5-14-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues the amendments are not directed to organizing human activity but are integrated into a practical application by providing a specific technological improvement over conventional systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees, using biometric sensors to gather data does not improve on the technology rather it uses a generic biometric sensor to collect data. Additionally per applicant’s specifications in paragraph 28 “The biometric sensor 16 is, for example, worn by a user whose biometric data are to be measured. The biometric sensor 16 may be incorporated in a wearable device worn by the user whose biometric data are to be measured. The biometric sensor 16 may also be an Internet of Things (IoT) device. Furthermore, the biometric data received from the biometric sensor 16 may be data measured by the biometric sensor 16 or may be data obtained by using the measured data. The biometric data includes, for example, stress levels, average burned calories, and the like”.
Applicant argues that the claims improved the system since it generates customized visualizations of disparate data streams by utilizing an improved data acquisition architecture that dynamically adapts to a whole variety of incompatible external data sources. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying a chart type does not improve the display or the terminal, this is just displaying the type of data on screen. It does not change the functionality of the display itself.
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 drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 8-9 recite “acquire first data related to the activity history of the user based on the differing access destination of the external service and the parameters for accessing the access destination of the external service of the data acquisition settings”, “acquire second data related to the user’s health based on the access destination and the parameters of accessing the access destination based on the data acquisition settings”, “store the first data and the second data”, “cause to display a list of chart types that shows a plurality of types of charts”, ”receive a selection of the chart type from the list of the chart type”, “aggregate data corresponding to the selection of the chart type defined in an aggregated query definition”, “perform time-series data integration of the first data and the second data, and perform the aggregation on the integrated data, thereby generating, aggregated data corresponding the chart type that is selected by the user”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers formula, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “memory”, “circuitry configured”, “biometric sensor”, “user terminal”, “cause a terminal to display a user interface for inputting data acquisition settings from a user, the data acquisition settings including an access destination of an external service, parameters for accessing the access destination of the external service an access destination of a biometric sensor and the parameters for accessing the access destination of the biometric sensor ”, “store, in the memory, the data acquisition settings input by the user, wherein the access destination of the external service included in the stored data acquisition settings comprises a uniform resource locator (URL) of an application programming interface (API) for data acquisition that differs according to a particular external service to be connected”, “executing a Structured Query Language (SQL) ” are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims recite the additional element of “a local instrument stored on a local memory”, “cause a terminal to display a list of chart type that shows plurality of types of the chart” and “cause to display a chart including the first data and second data based on the generated aggregated data, said chart corresponding to the chart that is selected by the user”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
- paragraph 89 that “processing circuit or circuitry may include a processor programmed to use software to execute a function in a similar manner to a processor implemented by an electronic circuit. A processing circuit or circuitry may also include devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor (DSP), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), conventional circuit components, and the like that are designed to execute each function as described above”.
-paragraph 19 recites “The instrument user interface 105 (e.g., display, keyboard and/or mouse), processor 106, and memory 107 may be provided as a workstation server computer that is coupled to the mechanical and electrical components of the instrument 101”.
-paragraph 28 recites “The biometric sensor 16 is, for example, worn by a user whose biometric data are to be measured. The biometric sensor 16 may be incorporated in a wearable device worn by the user whose biometric data are to be measured. The biometric sensor 16 may also be an Internet of Things (IoT) device. Furthermore, the biometric data received from the biometric sensor 16 may be data measured by the biometric sensor 16 or may be data obtained by using the measured data. The biometric data includes, for example, stress levels, average burned calories, and the like”.
The claims recite the additional element of “a local instrument stored on a local memory”, “cause a terminal to display a list of chart type that shows plurality of types of the chart” and “cause to display a chart including the first data and second data based on the generated aggregated data, said chart corresponding to the chart that is selected by the user”, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 10-12 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights