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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-14 is directed to a touching evaluation device, claims 15-17 is directed to touching evaluation method, and claims 18-20 is directed to a program for evaluating touching of a contacting person. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 15:
A touching evaluation method comprising:
a measurement control step for measuring contact pressures and a contact speed of a hand of a contacting person, the contact pressures changing over time at respective positions, as measured values respectively based on two sensors when the hand of the contacting person touches sequentially the two sensors being capable of detecting a contact pressure in at least two different positions;
a determination control step for comparing the measured values with reference ranges respectively, the reference range being a predetermined for a contacted person feeling comfortable when touched by the contacting person, and determining whether or not the measured value is within the reference range for each of measured values; and
an evaluation control step for evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is a comfortable touching when all the measured values are within corresponding reference ranges respectively, and evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is an uncomfortable touching when one measured value is outside the corresponding reference range;
wherein: a pressure reference range corresponding to the contact pressure for the touching of a whole body except a face of the contacting person is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-2.000 kgf/cm2, and the pressure reference range for the touching of the face is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-1.000 kgf/cm2, and a contact reference speed corresponding to the contact speed is a range of 1 cm/sec-20 cm/sec.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a measurement control step for measuring contact pressures and a contact speed of a hand of a contacting person, the contact pressures changing over time at respective positions, as measured values respectively based on two sensors when the hand of the contacting person touches sequentially the two sensors being capable of detecting a contact pressure in at least two different positions” is directed to math because the entire process, from the fundamental principles of physics and sensor operation to the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, is deeply rooted in various branches of mathematics. The specific "measurement control step" described—measuring changing contact pressures and speeds over time using two sensors—involves a plethora of mathematical disciplines.
“a determination control step for comparing the measured values with reference ranges respectively, the reference range being a predetermined for a contacted person feeling comfortable when touched by the contacting person, and determining whether or not the measured value is within the reference range for each of measured values” is directed to math because this is a direct mathematical operation, involving comparing the measured numerical values with the numerical bounds of a predetermined reference range. A reference range is defined by numerical minimum and maximum values, which inherently involves mathematical concepts like inequalities (e.g., measured value ≥ minimum, and measured value ≤ maximum) to determine if a value is "within the range". The step of determining whether a condition is met (i.e., whether the value is inside or outside the range) is a logical operation built upon the numerical comparisons.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " a measurement control step for measuring contact pressures and a contact speed of a hand of a contacting person, the contact pressures changing over time at respective positions, as measured values respectively based on two sensors when the hand of the contacting person touches sequentially the two sensors being capable of detecting a contact pressure in at least two different positions; a determination control step for comparing the measured values with reference ranges respectively, the reference range being a predetermined for a contacted person feeling comfortable when touched by the contacting person, and determining whether or not the measured value is within the reference range for each of measured values;” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“a measurement control step for measuring contact pressures and a contact speed of a hand of a contacting person, the contact pressures changing over time at respective positions, as measured values respectively based on two sensors when the hand of the contacting person touches sequentially the two sensors being capable of detecting a contact pressure in at least two different positions” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a determination control step for comparing the measured values with reference ranges respectively, the reference range being a predetermined for a contacted person feeling comfortable when touched by the contacting person, and determining whether or not the measured value is within the reference range for each of measured values” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“an evaluation control step for evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is a comfortable touching when all the measured values are within corresponding reference ranges respectively, and evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is an uncomfortable touching when one measured value is outside the corresponding reference range” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein: a pressure reference range corresponding to the contact pressure for the touching of a whole body except a face of the contacting person is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-2.000 kgf/cm2, and the pressure reference range for the touching of the face is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-1.000 kgf/cm2, and a contact reference speed corresponding to the contact speed is a range of 1 cm/sec-20 cm/sec” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“a measurement control step for measuring contact pressures and a contact speed of a hand of a contacting person, the contact pressures changing over time at respective positions, as measured values respectively based on two sensors when the hand of the contacting person touches sequentially the two sensors being capable of detecting a contact pressure in at least two different positions” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a determination control step for comparing the measured values with reference ranges respectively, the reference range being a predetermined for a contacted person feeling comfortable when touched by the contacting person, and determining whether or not the measured value is within the reference range for each of measured values” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“an evaluation control step for evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is a comfortable touching when all the measured values are within corresponding reference ranges respectively, and evaluating that the touching of the contacting person is an uncomfortable touching when one measured value is outside the corresponding reference range” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“wherein: a pressure reference range corresponding to the contact pressure for the touching of a whole body except a face of the contacting person is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-2.000 kgf/cm2, and the pressure reference range for the touching of the face is a range of 0.001 kgf/cm2-1.000 kgf/cm2, and a contact reference speed corresponding to the contact speed is a range of 1 cm/sec-20 cm/sec” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 15 but recites A touching evaluation device comprising: a measurement control part, a determination control part, and an evaluation control part. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 15. The additional elements (i.e., program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes said at least one processing device to perform the steps) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jo Buyung (KR 101775691 B1) disclose a system for providing health information through plantar pressure measurement. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the system for providing health information through plantar pressure measurement comprises: a plantar pressure measuring device which is portable by being rolled and wound on the foot, measures a plantar pressure of a person to be measured in an unfolded state, and transmits the measured plantar pressure to a terminal of the person to be measured; and the terminal of the person to be measured, which compares the plantar pressure received from the plantar pressure measuring device with a plantar pressure reference range for each foot part which is previously stored, extracts and displays a disease-suspected body part matching the foot part having the plantar pressure beyond the plantar pressure reference range for each foot part, and displays health guide information including symptom guide information and treatment guide information of the extracted disease suspected body part.
Hirose (JP 2016087206 A) disclose a massage system capable of notifying an operator of massage information such as pressing force of the operator to a subject without using a model simulating a predetermined portion of a human body. A massage system 30 comprises: load detection means 1 for detecting loads applied to a head side right part, a head side left part, a foot side right part, and a foot side left part of a bed 20 on which a subject 40 lies during massage; pressing force calculation means for calculating pressing force of a masseuse to the subject 40 as a part of massage information on the basis of load values detected by the load detection means 1; and massage information notification means for notifying the masseuse of the massage information.
Toyoda (JP 2012037626 A) disclose an applying action training device for training actions for applying cosmetics desired by a user by pseudo actions for applying the cosmetics to a member to be applied, the device comprises: detecting means for detecting pressing force against the member to be applied due to the user's actions for applying the cosmetics; measuring means for acquiring the pressing force detected by the detecting means, and measuring pressing force against the member to be applied obtained from the acquired pressing force, and speed of the actions for applying the cosmetics obtained from the pressing force; evaluating means for evaluating the user's actions for applying the cosmetics by comparing the obtained pressing force and speed with predetermined pressing force and speed of the actions for applying the cosmetics; and screen generating means for generating a screen for displaying the obtained pressing force and speed and the evaluation content.
Oshitari (JP 2010286558 A) disclose a device includes a sensor part 2 for generating electric signals having strength corresponding to strong or weak pressure and a human body model 4 formed by imitating each section of a human body and incorporating a pressure visualizing device 3 for displaying the electric signals from the sensor part 2 by colors corresponding to strength of the signals visually without using a complicated circuit. Consequently, it becomes possible to know the pressure applied on the human body by the simple configuration.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857