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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/435,194 filed on 02/07/2024. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 02/07/2024 and 01/13/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and are considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are (generic placeholder identified in bold):
In independent system/apparatus claim 1:
“a personal data acquisition unit configured to acquire personal data including body weight data of a dieter;”
“a life data acquisition unit configured to acquire life data of the dieter;”
“and a calculation unit configured to calculate a corrected body weight based on a correction term generated from the personal data and the life data and a measured body weight of the dieter.”
In dependent claim 3: “comprising a control unit configured to control a body weight scale so that it displays the corrected body weight.”
In dependent claim 6: “comprising a detection unit configured to detect a meal consumed by the dieter.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
“A processing apparatus comprising: a personal data acquisition unit configured to acquire personal data including body weight data of a dieter; a life data acquisition unit configured to acquire life data of the dieter; and a calculation unit configured to calculate a corrected body weight based on a correction term generated from the personal data and the life data and a measured body weight of the dieter.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of claims 8 and 9.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, an apparatus, belongs to a statutory category. Likewise, claim 8, a method, and claim 9, a non-transitory computer readable medium, both belong to statutory categories.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claims 1, 8, and 9 are found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process and/or a Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “to calculate a corrected body weight”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process because this limitation is merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements, and is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the aforementioned limitation recites mathematical calculations, e.g., see Spec. page 6, <Expression 1>, <Expression 2>, and <Expression 3>.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 8 and 9 which recite the same mathematical calculations, relationships and data evaluations and judgements.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed apparatus recites additional elements including “a personal data acquisition unit configured to acquire personal data” and “a life data acquisition unit configured to acquire life data of the dieter”; however these elements are found to be data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. “… unit to acquire personal data” and “… unit to acquire life data…” using generic high level computer elements, e.g. non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and a server apparatus ) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Claim 8 is a method claim that recites exactly the same abstract ideas recited in claim 1. Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements as the “acquiring” steps are recited at such a high level of generality without specifying any structure for performing the acquiring that they amount to no more than simple data observation and collection capable of being performed mentally or manually with pen and paper, i.e. acquiring information about a dieter such as body weight or other life data can simply be observed, conveyed verbally, or written down.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited, claim 9 recites the additional elements of " A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a processing program for causing a computer to: “; however, these element(s) are found to be generic computer components recited a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): "It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 {2014} ("The fact that a computer 'necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,' is beside the point")".
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the result of calculating the corrected body weight.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general-purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies) (data gathering). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claims 1,8, and 9 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2 and 4, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim further recites “a control unit configured to control a body weight scale so that it displays the corrected body weight”. However, these operations are described at a high level of generality without describing how the operations are performed. The claim merely generally recites the idea of an outcome without reciting any particular details of how the result is accomplished or the mechanism for accomplishing the result. It amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or it merely serves as a general link to the field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). Therefore, the element is insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
With respect to dependent claims 5-7, the claims further recite, w.r.t. their parent claims, “a body weight scale configured to display the corrected body weight.”; “a detection unit configured to detect a meal consumed by the dieter.“; and “the body weight scale comprises a selection unit configured to select whether to display the measured body weight or the corrected body weight of the dieter“. However, they are either further part of the data gathering activity, as described above, or merely output displaying activity and are described at a high level of generality without describing how the operations are performed (after invoking 112(f), the detection unit is no more than an imaging sensor capable of transmitting the exercise data with exercise time to the database); thus amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by MASAO JP2023012979, (IDS filed on 01/13/2025).
Regarding claim 1, MASAO teaches
A processing apparatus comprising: (Claim 1, line 1: An information processing device)
a personal data acquisition unit configured to acquire personal data including body weight data of a dieter ([0079]: CPU11 acquires the values of the user’s height, initial weight, and age from the personal data 124);
a life data acquisition unit configured to acquire life data of the dieter ([0079]: the CPU 11 obtains values to be used in calculating the estimated weight from the calorie intake data 122, the calorie expenditure data 123,…);
and a calculation unit configured to calculate a corrected body weight ([0080]: The CPU 11 calculates the estimated weight y<sub> e </sub> based on the calculation algorithm data 127 (step S604 )) based on a correction term generated from the personal data and the life data ([0079]: the CPU 11 obtains values to be used in calculating the estimated weight from the calorie intake data 122, the calorie expenditure data 123, the personal data 124,…) and a measured body weight of the dieter ([0081]: The CPU 11 determines whether or not step S602 has been executed and a measured value of the weight has been input)
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, MASAO further teaches:
The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the life data acquisition unit acquires exercise history data ([0020]) or meal history data ([0019]) of the dieter as the life data.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites similar elements as independent claim 1 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Finding that MASAO also teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a processing program for causing a computer to: ([0016]: The smartphone 10 includes a CPU 11 (Central Processing Unit), a memory 12 (storage unit). [0017]: The CPU 11 is a processor that controls the operation of each part of the smartphone 10 by reading and executing programs stored in the memory 12 and performing various arithmetic processing. [0018]: The memory 12 is a non-transitory recording medium that can be read by the CPU 11 as a computer,… )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO in view of JP 4957403 B2 (hereinafter “ `403 ”).
Specifically, MASAO teaches the elements of the parent claim(s).
MASAO further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
and calculates the corrected body weight in the weight loss plateau.( [0080]: The CPU 11 calculates the estimated weight y<sub> e </sub> based on the calculation algorithm data 127 (step S604 ). Examiner note: The reference teaches the calculation at any stage of the dieting period which would include periods when the dieter experiences a weight loss plateau.)
MASAO fails to teach, `403 however does teach the following element of the claim:
The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit estimates a weight loss plateau of the dieter based on a difference between a theoretical body weight calculated from the personal data and the life data and the measured body weight of the dieter, (`403 teaches the detection/calculation of a weight loss plateau by thresholding the “influence degree” [page 13, line 7 “Threshold for determining weight loss plateau” and page 7, line 15: “ weight loss plateaus where the weight loss effect is low” ] defined as
(
W
n
-
W
0
)
/
∑
∆
E
n
[FIG. 2 203], which can be shown to be equivalent (up to a scaling factor and sign) to thresholding the difference between a theoretical body weight (
W
0
+
∑
∆
E
n
) and the measured body weight of the dieter
W
n
, i.e.,
W
0
+
∑
∆
E
n
-
W
n
. Specifically,
W
0
+
∑
∆
E
n
-
W
n
>
T
H
1
can be shown to be equivalent to
W
n
-
W
0
∑
∆
E
n
<
T
H
1
-
1
. Thus, `403’s teaching on the calculation of a weight loss plateau is based on a difference between a theoretical body weight and the measured body weight of the dieter as disclosed in the specification after invoking 112(f)).
Since MASAO and `403 are both analogous art as they relate to body weight management; therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MASAO’s body weight management apparatus, as discussed above, to clearly include “estimates a weight loss plateau of the dieter based on a difference between a theoretical body weight calculated from the personal data and the life data and the measured body weight of the dieter” in view of `403 with the motivation to prevent the dieters from giving up on their weight loss efforts at a weight loss plateau period (page (4), the paragraph around line 20.). (see MPEP 2143 G).
Claims 3,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO in view of OZAKI (US4113039).
Regarding claim 3, MASAO teaches the elements of the parent claim(s). MASAO further teaches the following limitations of the claim:
The processing apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a control unit configured to control … so that it displays the corrected body weight ([0084]: “…, if it is determined in step S605 that a weight measurement value has not been input ("NO" in step S605), the CPU 11 causes the display unit 13 to display weight management information (e.g., the weight management screen 30 shown in Figure 4) including the estimated weight y<sub> e </sub> calculated in step S604 as the current weight 31 (step S609).”).
MASAO fails to clearly teach, OZAKI, however, does teach the following element of the claim:
… a body weight scale … (FIG. 1, the scale and its elements 18, 19 and Col. 6, lines 35-39, which teaches a body weight scale capable of displaying a corrected body weight)
Since MASAO and OZAKI are both analogous art as they relate to body weight measuring; therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MASAO’s teaching on displaying the estimated weight, as discussed above, to clearly include “to control a body weight scale so that it displays the corrected body weight” in view of OZAKI with the motivation to improve a standard body weight scale to display both the measured body weight and a reference body weight for the purpose of alerting the dieter when the weight exceeds a heathy range. (col 1, first two paragraphs of section 2: Description of the Prior Art) (see MPEP 2143 G).
Regarding claim 5, MASAO teaches the elements of the parent claim(s).
MASAO fails to teach, OZAKI, however, does teach the following element of the claim:
comprising: …and a body weight scale configured to display the corrected body weight (Abstract and FIG. 1, which shows the disclosed weight scale)
Since MASAO and OZAKI are both analogous art as they relate to body weight measuring; therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MASAO’s teaching on the body weight information processing device, as discussed above, to include “a body weight scale configured to display the corrected body weight “ in view of OZAKI with the motivation to improve a standard body weight scale to display both the measured body weight and a reference body weight for the purpose of alerting the dieter when the weight exceeds a heathy range. (Abstract and col 1, 1. Field of the Invention).
Regarding Claim 6, MASAO in view of OZAKI teaches the elements of the parent claim(s).
MASAO further teaches:
The body weight display system according to claim 5, comprising a detection unit configured to detect a meal consumed by the dieter ([0019]: The calorie intake is specified from, for example, an analysis result of an image of a meal captured by the camera).
Regarding Claim 7, MASAO in view of OZAKI teaches the elements of the parent claim(s).
OZAKI further teaches:
The body weight display system according to claim 5, wherein the body weight scale comprises a selection unit configured to select whether to display the measured body weight or the corrected body weight of the dieter (Col. 6, lines 39-43).
Since MASAO and OZAKI are both analogous art as they relate to body weight measuring; therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified MASAO’s teaching on the body weight information processing device, as discussed above, to include “the body weight scale comprises a selection unit configured to select whether to display the measured body weight or the corrected body weight of the dieter “ in view of OZAKI with the motivation to improve a standard body weight scale to display both the measured body weight and a reference body weight for the purpose of alerting the dieter when the weight exceeds a heathy range. (Abstract and col 1, 1. Field of the Invention).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-103827642-B by SHIMIZU discloses a body weight management device that acquires and stores daily body weight measurements, computes a representative body weight value, and calculates a target weight value aiming to provide realistic, fluctuation-adjusted targets for weight loss to avoid unrealistic expectations.
HACKDIET by WALKER teaches the use of moving averages to track real progress that is more meaningful than the raw measurement.
JP-2002318153-A by HONMA discloses a weight management system that encourages a dieter to keep dieting by providing easily recognized current state of the dieter.
JP-2017-102614-A by YOKOI discloses an electronic device / wearable system for supporting diet management with the following units: two acquisition units, a correction unit, and a control unit. The core idea is correcting dietary intake information based on user state (activity/life data) and using the corrected value for practical notifications to support weight/diet management.
JP-2018-013372-A by MASAHIRO discloses a weight management system that acquires body weight data, processes weight data mathematically, generates adjusted or smoothed target values, displays modified weight-related information to maintain user motivation, and guides the user during weight-loss management.
US20140285491-A1 by OMRON discloses a display control device that helps a user lose weight by showing body-weight information in a more motivating way.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA MEI H CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 5712726334. 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.
/HUA MEI HARRY CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights