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, see page 12, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-22, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One
The Applicant asserts “Claims 28-40, and 42-47 are not directed to an abstract idea”. Specifically, the applicant argues “This is not abstract or a mental process because it requires a machine (i.e., electronic device), and use of the machine to obtain segmental body composition. The process requires obtaining the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information, and displaying, by the electronic device, the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information. This is more than generic, and solves the body composition device specific problem of providing accurate measurement results. (See e.g. paragraphs 5, 27 and 63).” However, these cited paragraphs do not sufficiently prove how these limitations amount to more than an abstract idea. In the specification, “obtaining” a body composition comprises inputting information (e.g. weight information, impedance information, previously acquired segmental body composition information) into a body composition algorithm model (i.e. equation, see [0015]; [0089]-[0129]). This is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims also encompasses mental processes. Furthermore, other sections of the applicant’s specification (e.g. [007], [0017], [0062]) recite using certain types of information (e.g. personal information, previously segmental body composition information) to improve accuracy of subsequent segmental body composition measurement results. The Examiner notes that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited biomarker calculation using mathematical calculations and/or mental processes) is not an improvement in technology. In other words, the improvement in technology cannot come from improvement in the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The Applicant also argued “First, claim 28 recites displaying segmental body composition information, and display by an electronic device cannot be performed as a human process”. However, this claim limitation amounts to the extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Applicant has also argued “Second, the criteria for evaluating patent eligible subject matter is not whether elements of a claim are performed by some hypothetical mental process, but instead should consider whether the claims are an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement of another technology. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d), enumerated improvements in the operation of a machine, including improvements in computing systems or a technical field are not directed to a judicial exception. Applicant's specification discusses improvements in processes and devices for improving the accuracy of body weight measurements (See e.g. paragraphs 5, 27 and 63).”. However, the criteria for Step 2A, Prong One is whether elements of a claim can performed by some hypothetical mental process. See MPEP 2106.04. Considering whether the claims are an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement of another technology is a question answered in Step 2A, Prong Two. Finally, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two
The applicant has argued “The claims are directed to a practical application designed to improve measurement accuracy by an electronic device. This is analogous to the patent eligible subject matter of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to self-referential table for a computer database were not directed to an abstract idea) because the present claims provide a rule-based improvement in a technical field.” However, in Enfish, the claims recite the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims. This is a specific improvement in computer functionality. In contrast, the current claims recite an alleged improvement in accuracy from performing a judicial exception. Improving the accuracy of a processing step that can be performed in the human mind does not qualify as an improvement in technology. Rather, it is an improvement of an abstract idea, as “accuracy” is a statistical measure of a value relative to its true value. This makes an improvement in accuracy an improvement in mathematics, (e.g., statistics and other mathematical calculations). The Examiner notes that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited biomarker calculation using mathematical calculations and/or mental processes) is not an improvement in technology. In other words, the improvement in technology cannot come from improvement in the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
For these reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 32, 37, 40, 48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 32, “The method of claim 31, detecting...” should read “The method of claim 31, further comprising: detecting...”
In Claim 37, “controlling display of the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information” should read “”.
In Claim 40, “control display of the muscle balance indicator and the fat balance indicator” should read “”.
In Claim 48, “control display of the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information” should read “”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 28-40 and 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim recites a method for body composition measurement. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
Regarding Claim 37, the claim recites an electronic device. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
Regarding Claim 48, the claim recites a computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non- transitory computer-readable medium. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
obtain[ing] first segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information and the impedance information, wherein the first segmental body composition information comprises left leg composition information or right leg composition information
obtain[ing] second segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information, the impedance information, and the first segmental body composition information, wherein the second segmental body composition information comprises left arm composition information or right arm composition information
obtain[ing] whole-body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information, a first weighting coefficient of the weight information, the impedance information, and a second weighting coefficient of the impedance information
obtain[ing] third segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the whole-body composition information, the first segmental body composition information, and the second segmental body composition information, wherein the third segmental body composition information comprises trunk composition information
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “obtain[ing] first segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information and the impedance information, wherein the first segmental body composition information comprises left leg composition information or right leg composition information” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time. It also includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “obtain[ing] second segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information, the impedance information, and the first segmental body composition information, wherein the second segmental body composition information comprises left arm composition information or right arm composition information” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time. It also includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “obtain[ing] whole-body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information, a first weighting coefficient of the weight information, the impedance information, and a second weighting coefficient of the impedance information” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time. It also includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “obtain[ing] whole-body composition information of the measurement object based on the weight information, a first weighting coefficient of the weight information, the impedance information, and a second weighting coefficient of the impedance information” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time. It also includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
The plain meaning of the limitation “obtain[ing] third segmental body composition information of the measurement object based on the whole-body composition information, the first segmental body composition information, and the second segmental body composition information, wherein the third segmental body composition information comprises trunk composition information” includes mathematical calculations that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations steps in real time. It also includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
obtaining, by the electronic device... (Claim 28)
displaying, by the electronic device, the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information (Claim 28)
controlling display of the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information (Claim 37)
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
A method for body composition measurement implemented by an electronic device (Claim 28)
a memory configured to store instructions (Claim 37)
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to…(Claim 37)
A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non- transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an electronic device to... (Claim 48)
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
obtaining, by the electronic device... (Claim 28)
displaying, by the electronic device, the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information (Claim 28)
controlling display of the first segmental body composition information, the second segmental body composition information, and the third segmental body composition information (Claim 37)
A method for body composition measurement implemented by an electronic device (Claim 28)
a memory configured to store instructions (Claim 37)
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to…(Claim 37)
A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non- transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an electronic device to... (Claim 48)
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The electronic device (which is an eight-electrode body fat scale or four-electrode body fat scale in Claim 47) is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from Ashida et al (US 20060129333 A1; See Fig. [0004]-[0005]; See Fig. 3; these four-electrode scale electronic devices are commercially available).
The display is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant' s specification filed 04/28/2023 (“The display interface may be a display interface of a four-electrode body fat scale. Specifically, after determining the foregoing information, the four-electrode body fat scale displays the foregoing information on the display interface of the four-electrode body fat scale. The display interface may be alternatively a display interface of the terminal device 220”, [0151]; four-electrode body fat scale with displays are conventional, as evidence by US 20020027439 A1, [0002]).
The wearable device in Claims 35 and 44 is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant' s specification filed 04/28/2023 (“The wearable device may be, for example, a smart band, a smartwatch, or a smart anklet”, [0067]).
Dependent Claims 29-36, 38-40, and 42-47 also fail to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 31-32, 34-26, 38, 40, and 42-47 also fail to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Dependent Claims 31-32, 34-26, 38, and 40, and 42-47 also fail to add subject matter integrating the judicial exception or qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Therefore, Claims 28-40 and 42-48 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes Claims 28-40 and 42-48 are not currently rejected under prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Shiokawa (JP 5242260 B2).
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 JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights