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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in combination with amendments, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on page 9, the applicant argues that the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. The claim as recited merely recite monitoring images, computing a time required until the target takes the medicine and generating a state information. As detailed below, the computing step under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind, while the generating step is an insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In other words, the claim as presented does not provide any specific treatment, therapy, solution, etc.
Applicant's arguments in combination with amendments, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on page 11, specifically on page 12, the applicant argues that Lee does not disclose, teach or render obvious “a time required until the target takes the medicine”. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. As written, the claim does not provide any details regarding how the time is calculated and when the time starts. For example, is it from the time the target (person/animal) last took the medication, is it from the time the target (person/animal) has access to the medication, is it from the time the target (person/animal) starts taking the medication, etc. As written, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any action pattern which is understood to include how the subject takes the medication (quickly, slowly, etc.) would read over the claimed limitation.
On page 13 the applicant has requested the double patenting rejection to be held in abeyance until the claims are in condition for allowance. This request has been acknowledged. The previous double patenting rejection will be presented again in this office action for convenience.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 have been cancelled. All previous rejections/objections of these claims are therefore considered moot and therefore withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-17, 19-20 recite an apparatus and device respectively, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 9-15 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 9 and 15 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “acquiring a first image (being moving image)” and “generating suitability state information”, “computing a time required until the target takes the medicine”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 9 and 15 recite the additional limitations of “apparatus”, “memory”, “processor”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “acquiring sound information”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20190106908 to Lee in view of 2001043345 to Sawada et al. (hereinafter “Sawada”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15. Lee discloses a suitability state decision apparatus, computer, non-transitory [], (para 0057 “robot 1”) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (para 0112 “storage unit”); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (para 0075 “controller 140”), the operations comprising: acquiring a first image being an image when a target takes a medicine (para 0152 “acquires image data extracted through the camera from the image capture unit 120”); and generating, by using the first image, state information indicating a state of the target relating to the medicine (para 0153-0157) wherein the target is a person or an animal (abstract, para 0014, etc. “user”), the first image is a moving image (para 0090, 0124 camera from the image capture unit”) and the operations comprise computing, by processing the moving image, a time required until the target takes the medicine, and generating the suitability state information by using the time (para 0306 “acquires image data extracted through the camera from the image capture unit 120, analyzes the image data, and then extracts an action pattern of the user” – it is understood that the action pattern could include the manner in which medication is taken).
Lee discloses determining the status of the user and the action pattern of the user but fails to disclose suitability state information indicating a suitability state (when read in light of the specification).
Sawada, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches a medication control system that determines the state of each degree of facial expression using a facial expression recognition device (Description). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Lee with the teachings of Sawada to provide monitoring the patient’s facial expression taking the medication, because doing so would provide the predictable result of monitoring the patients behaviour.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, method according to claim 9 and non-transitory computer [] according to claim 15, wherein the operations comprise analyzing, by processing the first image, at least one of an expression and a feeling when the target takes the medicine, and generating the suitability state information by using a result of the analyzing (Sawada, Description “facial expression”).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, method according to claim 9 and non-transitory computer [] according to claim 15, wherein the operations comprise generating, as the suitability state information, information indicating an effect of a medicine taken by the target in a past (para 0076 “history data”; para 0154 “previous medication cycle”).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, method according to claim 9 and non-transitory computer [] according to claim 15, wherein the operations comprise acquiring a second image being an image of the target after the target has taken the medicine, and generating at least a part of the suitability state information by using the second image (para 0155-0157 “acquires image data of the user through the camera (S19); or see fig. 7 and para 0222).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, method according to claim 9 and non-transitory computer [] according to claim 15, wherein the operations comprise generating the suitability state information by using the first image when the target takes the medicine or another medicine in a past, or a processing result of the first image (see rejection of claim 1; the claim only requires one of the above limitations).
Regarding claim 7. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein operations comprise acquiring sound information generated when the target takes the medicine, and generating the suitability state information by using the sound information (para 0297).
Regarding claim 8. Lee as modified by Sawada renders obvious the suitability state decision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operations comprise deciding whether the target has taken the medicine, and performing predetermined processing when the target has not taken the medicine (figs 4-5).
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 9 and 15 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/229,473 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 9 and 15 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 8 of copending Application No. 17/927,236 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796