DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response, filed 08/19/2026, has been fully considered.
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 .
Priority
This application filed 03/22/2023 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2021/033904, filed 09/15/2021, and claims foreign priority to 2020-160161, filed 09/24/2020; 2020-160244, filed 09/24/2020; 2020-160245, filed 09/24/2020; and 2020-160246, filed 09/24/2020. The claims are therefore examined as filed on 09/24/2020, the effective filing date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further review of the priority application(s).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/19/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 are directed to the elected invention.
Claims 1-8 are examined.
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, all references have been considered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “behavior pattern information generation unit” of claims 1 and 3
The “behavior score calculation unit” of claim 1
The “behavior pattern identification unit” of claims 1 and 2
The “activity level score calculation unit” of claims 4 and 6
The “activity level score correction unit” of claim 5
The “output control unit” and “output unit” of claim 7
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes the output unit as a display or sound unit (pg 15) and describes the behavior pattern information generation unit, behavior score calculation unit, behavior pattern identification unit, activity level score calculation unit, activity level score correction unit, and output control unit as parts of the control unit which can be implemented by causing a central processing unit to execute a program, by an integrated circuit, or by a combination of a hardware and software (pg 17-18, 40, 57). Therefore, these units are interpreted as implemented by general computer elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts, without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
(2A)(1) Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to step (1) (Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?): Yes. The claims are directed to one of the statutory classes. Claims 1-8 are directed to a product (an information processing apparatus comprising a sensor and units, which are computer-implemented according to the specification).
With regard to step (2A)(1) (Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception?): Yes. The claims recite the abstract ideas of processing data using mental steps and mathematical concepts. Claims that recite nothing more than abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.04).
Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (including procedures for collecting, observing, evaluating, and organizing information (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). In particular, these abstract ideas include but are not limited to:
Generating behavior pattern information in a multidimensional space formed of coordinate axes to generate a group of spaces in each of which density of a behavior pattern information group as a collection of pieces of the behavior pattern information exceeds predetermined density, the coordinate axes representing at least parameters of a date and time, a place, and a duration of detection of the behavior state (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of plotting behavioral data in a space with 3 coordinate axes and determine the density of points; and generating a mathematical representation between datapoints is a mathematical relationship, further determining a density of points and comparing it to a predetermined density is equivalent to performing a mathematical calculation; claims 1, 3)
Calculating, as a behavior score, information on a size of the space including the behavior pattern information group based on the behavior state information (mental process/mathematical concept, the human mind is capable of calculating a score from the size of a space and behavioral information, and calculating a score is a mathematical concept; claim 1)
Identifying, as a behavior pattern of the user, the behavior pattern information group in the space for which a value of the behavior score is equal to or larger than a predetermined value (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of identifying a behavior pattern based on whether a score meets a threshold, comparing a score to a threshold is a mathematical concept; claim 1)
determining, as an extraordinary behavior, the behavior pattern for which the value of the behavior score is larger than a first threshold, and determine, as an ordinary behavior, the behavior pattern for which the value of the behavior score is smaller than a second threshold (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of classifying a behavior as ordinary or extraordinary based on if a score meets a threshold, and comparing a score to a threshold is a mathematical concept; claim 2)
Calculating an autonomic nerve activity level of the user based on the biological information, and calculating an activity level score of the user based on the autonomic nerve activity level, the behavior score, and the behavior pattern (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of calculating an activity score based on measured or calculated data, and performing a calculation is a mathematical concept; claim 4)
correcting the activity level score based on one of a country and a region in which the behavior pattern of the user is identified (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of correcting a score based on user data, and doing so is equivalent to performing a calculation; claim 5)
calculating a current activity level score of the user based on a history of activity level scores of the user (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of calculating a current activity level score based on user data/history, and performing a calculation is a mathematical concept; claim 6)
calculating a current activity level score of the user based on a history of a different user for whom a behavior pattern and an activity level score are similar to the user (mental process/mathematical concept; the human mind is capable of calculating a current activity level score based on different user data/history, and performing a calculation is a mathematical concept; claim 8)
Therefore, the claims recite elements that constitute one or more judicial exceptions.
With regard to step (2A)(2) (Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): No. Claim 1 and its dependents recite the additional element of an information processing apparatus comprising a sensor for detecting behavior state information from a user, and “units” (described in the specification as computer implemented software) for performing analysis steps. Claim 7 recites the additional element of outputting a temporal change of the activity level score of the user by using an output unit.
While the claims recite the additional element of a sensor for detecting behavior state information from a user, a sensor for gathering/generating data for analysis, without further detail on the structure and function of the sensor, merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, while the claims recite the additional element of gathering and outputting data, such steps that only amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, without any technical details of how the data is obtained/output that integrate the judicial exception, are insignificant extrasolution activities that do not add a meaningful limitation to the claims (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As a result, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In addition, while the claims recite additional elements related to the use of computers, they do not provide any specific details by which the information processing apparatus or “units” perform or carry out the judicial exception listed in step (2A)(1), nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Because the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to step (2B) (Do the claims recite additional elements that provide an inventive concept and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?): No. The claims recite an abstract idea with additional elements; however, these additional elements are general computer elements added to abstract ideas, and non-particular instructions to apply the abstract idea by linking it to a field of use or extrasolution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f-h)). General computer elements used to perform an abstract idea do not provide an inventive concept, and similarly, non-particular instructions to gather data with a sensor or output data do not provide an inventive concept. Non-particular instructions to gather or output data using general computer elements are also considered well-understood, routine and conventional activities (see MPEP 2106.05(d), which indicates that limitations such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” from Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, “Storing and retrieving information in memory” from Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, are recognized as conventional activities). Further, the use of various sensors for gathering behavioral data from users are also considered well-known, routine and conventional (see HARARI 2017, cited on the 892 form, which reviews several studies measuring human behavior using smartphones and their embedded mobile sensors). The claims therefore do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As a result, the claims as a whole do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims Without an Art Rejection
No art rejection is applied to claims 1-8. Close art, such as SOBOL 2019 (US 20190209022 A1), while teaching systems and methods of behavioral monitoring that includes representing data in multidimensional space, does not teach the claimed limitation of generating behavior pattern information in a multidimensional space with the coordinate axes representing at least parameters of a date and time, a place, and a duration of detection of the behavior state, and grouping spaces in a behavioral pattern information group based on the density exceeding a pre-determined density, and no combinable art before the effective filing date could be found to render the claims as obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
SOBOL 2019 (US 20190209022 A1) teaches methods and systems for monitoring location, environmental, activity and physiological data of patients to proactively identify health changes
RAWASSIZADEH 2016 “Scalable Daily Human Behavioral Pattern Mining from Multivariate Temporal Data” teaches a set of scalable algorithms to identify patterns of human daily behaviors extracted from multivariate temporal data that have been collected from smartphones
ZHOU 2018 “Quantifying multi-dimensional attributes of human activities at various geographic scales based on smartphone tracking” teaches a system using smartphones to measure multi-dimensional attributes of human activities, including space, duration, step, and location uncertainty at various spatial scales
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C LEVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-5494. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm M-Th.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/MARY C LEVERETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1687
