DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites:
An electronic device comprising: memory;
a display;
communication circuitry;
at least one sensor; and at least one processor, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to:
detect, via the at least one sensor, biometric data of a user related to at least one of sleep status, exercise status, or dietary status;
determine, by executing on an auxiliary processor comprising a neural processing unit (NPU) an artificial intelligence model comprising a neural network, a health score that the biometric data satisfies at least one specific condition;
when a coaching event is generated by a health application of the electronic device;
determine a coaching message to be displayed based on the health score;
identify, using an emotion information model stored in an emotion database and by performing morphological analysis of text included in the coaching message, a first emotion tag, that indicates a representative emotion related to the coaching message, and a first element set of visual elements corresponding the first emotion tag;
identify, based on the first emotion tag, a second emotion tag, that indicates an associated emotion related to the representative emotion, and a second element set of visual elements corresponding the second emotion tag;
determine priorities of a plurality of visual elements in the first element set and the second element set;
by perform scoring of each of the plurality of visual elements, including computing both a user preference score derived from explicit user feedback recorded in the log information, the log information including at least one of selection of a like/dislike object, clicking a button for identifying detailed content, or user interaction with a visual element, and an exposure statistics score that decreases according to the prior display frequency within a designated recent period;
apply weights to the user preference score and the exposure statistics score to compute a weighted score for each of the plurality of visual elements;
select a representative visual element having the highest priority among the plurality of visual elements according to the weighted score, to be displayed with the coaching message;
and display, via the display user interface including the representative visual element and the coaching message, wherein the representative visual element in the user interface includes an emoticon or an object indicating one of the first emotion tag and the second emotion tag.
*Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but for a method.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
determining, generating, computing applying, performing scoring, and identifying) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “memory”, “communication circuitry”, “sensor”, “processor electronic device”, “electronic device”, “user interface”, “application”, and “processor”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the device language, the claim encompasses thinking about an intended message and associating any emotions related to the message. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping and thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components and functions such a generating and selecting covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case a person is able to physically follow to steps to construct a coaching message), and hence falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-22 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting what additional components an emotion tag entails, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “memory”, “communication circuitry”, “sensor”, “processor electronic device”, “electronic device”, “user interface”, “processor”, “application”, “display”, “executed”, “stores”, “neural processing unit”, “detect, via the at least one sensor, biometric data of a user related to at least one of sleep status, exercise status, or dietary status”, “by executing on an auxiliary processor comprising a neural processing unit (NPU) an artificial intelligence model comprising a neural network”, “display, via the display user interface including the representative visual element and the coaching message, wherein the representative visual element in the user interface includes an emoticon or an object indicating one of the first emotion tag and the second emotion tag.”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of detecting, determining, generated, and identifying are recited as being performed by “memory”, “communication circuitry”, “sensor”, “processor electronic device”, “electronic device”, “user interface”, “processor”, “application”, and “neural processing unit (NPU)”, “artificial intelligence model”, and “neural network”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The artificial intelligence model and neural network are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the recitation of “display/displaying”, “executed/executing”, “stores/storing”, “detect, via the at least one sensor, biometric data of a user related to at least one of sleep status, exercise status, or dietary status”, and “display, via the display user interface including the representative visual element and the coaching message, wherein the representative visual element in the user interface includes an emoticon or an object indicating one of the first emotion tag and the second emotion tag.”
Dependent claims 10 and 20 recite “module”, “outputting”, “user interface”
Dependent claim 21 recites “transmitting”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of are recited as being performed by “modules” and “user interface”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the recitation of “outputting” and “transmitting”.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-16, 18-19, and 22-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 10, 20, and 21, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of an additional element such as:
Transmit/transmission (claim 21), which is expressly sending or receiving data
electronically (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Outputting (claims 10 and 20) which is expressly used as a means to supply data (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Display (claims 1 and 11) which is expressly used as a way to show information on a screen in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Para 0004, Itou(US 20200387038 A1) discloses: “Thus, in a conventional display device, a metallic pedestal, which is formed by patterning with the same material as that of the signal line and simultaneously with the signal line, is interposed between the semiconductor layer and the pixel electrode, so that these two are indirectly connected.”
Para 0002, Huang(US 20200388719 A1) discloses: “A conventional display apparatus, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) apparatus or an active matrix organic light emitting display (AMOLED) apparatus, includes a plurality of thin-film transistors (TFTs) and a plurality of pixels that are arranged in an array.”
Para 36, Nicholson(US 10812699 B1) discloses: “Analogous to the example above, the second arrangement of display pixels 202 may provide a device display quality for a conventional display area (corresponding to the second region 216). “
Execute (claims 1, 3-5, 8-10) which is expressly used to carry out and instruction or program in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Para 0092, Ratnakaram(US 20200175154 A1) discloses: “This conventional transaction execution process 700 requires that the merchant system pause its processing operations for the amount of time between its request for an approval of the requested transaction to when the approval is received.”
Para 0013, Lawrence(US 20200159710 A1) discloses: “Furthermore, the use of string correlithm objects significantly reduces the computational burden of comparing time-varying sequences of data, or multi-dimensional data objects, with respect to conventional forms of executing dynamic time warping algorithms.“
Para 0016, Sayed(US 20150193888 A1) discloses: “The client devices may be executing conventional web browser applications, or applications that have been developed for a specific platform to include any of a wide variety of mobile computing devices and mobile-specific operating systems.”
Storing (claims 1, 9, and 19), which is expressly used to cache data in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Para 0057, Lebedev(US 20190306252 A1) discloses: “The mass storage device may take form of a hard disk or disk array, flash memory, magnetic table, or other suitable mass storage device as is conventional in the art, for storing information used as part of the contact center management system 100 and the contact center system 102.”
Para 0054, O’Donnell(US 20190308049 A1) discloses: “In one aspect, system 10 may include one or more digital storage devices 46 adapted to communicate with processor 24 (wired or wirelessly) via connection 48. The storage device 42 may be conventional digital storage device.”
Para 0030, Ramasamy(US 20190333030 A1) discloses: “For example, conventional data storage arrangements that use a central data authority have a single point of failure (namely, the central storage location) which, if compromised by a malicious attacker, can lead to data tampering, unauthorized data disclosure, and exploitation and/or loss of operative control of the processes performed by the centralized system.”
Sensor (claim 1), which is a device that detects and responds to a physical stimulus from its environment, such as light, heat, motion, or pressure, and convert it into a signal in a manner (Para 0032, Arnold(US20220117547A1) discloses: “ In certain embodiments, the physiological metric module 141 is optionally in communication with one or more external physiological sensors 145 not embedded or integrated in the computing device 100 (e.g., an electrode, or sensor integrated in another electronic device). Examples of internal physiological sensors 140 and external physiological sensors 145 include, but are not limited to, sensors for measuring body temperature, heart rate, blood oxygen level and movement.”) that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2, 12-16, 18-19, and 22-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those already addressed above for dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, and 91-21 and independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 11 hence do not amount to
“significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 11 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons.
Claim 1 (in part)
“…by perform scoring of each of the plurality of visual elements, including computing both a user preference score derived from explicit user feedback recorded in the log information, the log information including at least one of selection of a like/dislike object, clicking a button for identifying detailed content, or user interaction with a visual element, and an exposure statistics score that decreases according to the prior display frequency within a designated recent period;
apply weights to the user preference score and the exposure statistics score to compute a weighted score for each of the plurality of visual elements;
select a representative visual element having the highest priority among the plurality of visual elements according to the weighted score, to be displayed with the coaching message…”
The closest available prior art of record is as follows:
Pham(US20180083898A1) discloses a method provide message suggestions in an application using semantic analysis, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Arnold(US20220117547A1) discloses a system which presents health related messages to users of an activity/health monitoring platform, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Jon(US20170075878A1) discloses a system which allows for the selection of canned responses and emojis but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Based on the evidence provided above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly discloses or suggest the claimed invention. For this reason, claims 1 and 11 would be found to be subject matter free of prior art. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-22 would also be found to be subject matter free of prior art via dependency for at least the same rationale as applied to parent claims 1 and 11 above and are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
(Page 10) Regarding the assertion that the amended claims 1 and 11 cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The NPU and a neural network are applied generically in the claim such that if removed, much of the claim can be performed by a human via mental process(pen/paper) or would be considered certain methods of organizing human activity. The computing elements added can also be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper and do not necessitate computer or computer functions to be executed.
(Page 11) Regarding the assertion that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea.
(Page 11) Regarding the assertion that the Step 2B rejection lack support that the auxiliary NPU execution of a neural network for health scoring is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The NPU and neural network would be considered “apply it” under Step 2A Prong Two. Please refer to the above 101 analysis.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn due to subject matter free of prior art via amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tran(US9107586B2) discloses a fitness monitoring system which includes messaging/alerts. Some disclosures of the invention are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specification, pages 3, and 6-8)
Harrison(US20210303112A1) discloses interactive messaging stickers with a message. Some disclosures of the invention are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specifications, pages 37-39)
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights