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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-5, 11-15 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 6-10 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, 6 and 11 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “determine timing at which the biometric information satisfies a criterion”, “acquire environment information indicating an environment of the subject at a date and time determined by using the timing”, “performing an output”. 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, 6 and 11 recite the additional limitations of “apparatus”, “memory”, 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 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 depend on claims 1, 6 and 11 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 “notification destination”, “worn”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and 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)).
It is further noted that the act of generating, using or training a model falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations.
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 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170206795 to Kaleal.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11. Kaleal discloses an information processing apparatus/method/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., para 0066 “system”) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (e.g., para 0067 “memory 218 that stores computer executable components and processor 228 that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory”) to: determine timing at which the biometric information satisfies a criterion by processing biometric information of a subject (e.g., para 0155, “receive and process raw physical data [] raw physical data 304 can include biometric data,” – it is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding how the specific biometric information, determining timing, satisfies a criterion, etc. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any time data is successfully collected is considered to satisfy a criterion and read over the claimed limitation); acquire environment information indicating an environment of the subject at a date and time determined by using the timing (e.g., para 0155 “receive and process context information [] context information includes location information, time of day”); and
perform an output including the environment information (e.g., para 0159 “determine a response [] avatar to command and/or motivate the user to perform an action to correct or accommodate the deviation”).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 12. Kaleal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the criterion is a criterion for deciding that the subject feels stress (e.g., para 0121 “physical and physiological activity feature based reference metrics, programs, routines and be associated with context reference parameters that define requirements such as location, time of day” “received contextual information regarding where a user is located and when, combined with external accessible information about the user's environment (e.g., physical structures, events, etc.) and received physical and physiological activity data for the user (e.g., movement patterns, the user's stress levels”).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13. Kaleal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform the output to a notification destination set in advance (e.g., para 0176 “reaction can include initiation of electronic communication (e.g., sending a notification, initiating an emergency call)”).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 14. Kaleal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate, by using the environment information included in the output (e.g., para 0176, “reaction can include initiation of electronic communication (e.g., sending a notification, initiating an emergency call)”- it is understood that location is provided to properly seek help when calling emergency services), at least one of statistical data and a model for generating information relating to a possibility that biometric information of the subject satisfies a criterion in a certain environment (e.g., para 0117 “various algorithms and classification schemes”, para 0118, 0148 “model”).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15. Kaleal discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the biometric information is acquired by an apparatus worn by the subject (para 0032, 0062 “biosensing device is worn by the user”).
Conclusion
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