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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 14-15 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-15 remain pending and are examiner herein.
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.
3. Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
4. Claims 1 and 3-15 are directed to estimating a character trait of a subject, which is considered managing personal behavior. Managing personal behavior falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claims 1 and 3-15 are also directed to calculating an estimation and a plurality of action feature values. Mathematical calculations fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mathematical Concepts). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1 and 3-13 recite a system comprising an interface apparatus and an arithmetic apparatus. Claim 14 recites a method and at least one step. Claims 15 recites a recording medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, process, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which character traits are estimated, in the following limitations:
provision information including inducement information for inducing a subject to take an action for a purpose different from psychological characteristics estimation,
measurement data relating to the action taken by the subject being induced by the provided inducement information,
subject intention data and related action data based on the measurement data,
the action induced by the inducement information includes designation of a subject intention and a related action that is all or a part of actions excluding the designation of the subject intention,
the subject intention data is data representing the designated subject intention,
the related action data is data representing a related action,
determines one or a plurality of action feature values based on related action data for each of one or a plurality of related actions and estimates psychological characteristics of the subject based on the one or the plurality of action feature values,
outputs estimated psychological characteristics data that is data representing the estimated psychological characteristics, and
each of one or more action feature values used to estimate the psychological characteristics of the subject is adjusted information on at least a part of the provided provision information and/or the action feature value enhanced according to an elapsed time,
wherein:
enhances, concerning each of the one or more action feature values, the action feature value according to the elapsed time and estimates the psychological characteristics of the subject based on one or a plurality of action feature values including the one or more action feature values respectively enhanced,
for at least one psychological characteristics component of the one or more psychological characteristics components of the psychological characteristics of the subject, on a model selection policy including an arithmetic load and a threshold of the arithmetic load, wherein
for each elapsed time, and
corresponding to the n action feature values in a one-to-one relation (where n is an integer equal to or larger than 1), and based on the arithmetic load being smaller than the threshold, is selected, and based on the arithmetic load being equal to or greater than the threshold, is selected.
The above-recited limitations estimate character traits of a subject. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Additionally, the above-recited limitations calculate an estimation and a plurality of action feature values. This arrangement amounts to mathematical calculations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible Mathematical Concepts by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
an interface apparatus coupled to a subject apparatus that is an apparatus including one or a plurality of sensors; and
an arithmetic apparatus coupled to the interface apparatus, wherein
the arithmetic apparatus provides, to the subject apparatus.
the arithmetic apparatus
the arithmetic apparatus selects, one of a first estimation model or a second estimation model based
the first estimation model includes a multiple regression model
the second estimation model is a multiple regression model including n multiple regression models.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“an interface apparatus”, “a subject apparatus”, “one or a plurality of sensors”, “an arithmetic apparatus”, “one of a first estimation model”, “a second estimation model”, “a multiple regression model(s)”,) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (providing, receiving, specifying, designating, representing, determining, outputting, estimating, enhancing, and selecting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0047], [0062], [0065] indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 14 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 3-13 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 3-5 include, in part, wherein the arithmetic apparatus estimates, using a first estimation model, at least one psychological characteristics component among one or more psychological characteristics components of the psychological characteristics of the subject, the first estimation model includes a multiple regression model for each elapsed time, and the multiple regression model for each elapsed time includes: n explanatory variables (n is an integer equal to or larger than 1) corresponding to n action feature values in a one-to-one relation; and a weighting coefficient decided by the elapsed time for each of the n explanatory variables. This falls into the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts for the same reasons as the independent claims. Claims 6-9 include the measurement data includes moving image data that is data representing a moving image of the subject captured by the camera, and the arithmetic apparatus specifies, based on the moving image data, related action data for each of one or a plurality of related actions. This falls into the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claims. Claims 10-13 further specify or limit the element of the independent claims and are therefore directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and the claims amount to “significantly more” than any abstract idea.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of the claim limitations outlined above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer/apparatus and uses the computer/apparatus as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology. The claim elements “a first model that is used when the arithmetic load (i.e., the computational load) on the arithmetic apparatus is smaller than a threshold, and a second model that is used when the arithmetic load on the arithmetic apparatus is greater than the threshold” are not a technological improvement. It does not improve the function of the apparatus. Further, the improvement is not in the functioning of another technology, namely an improvement in the technology for communication through a computer interface that includes detection of psychological characteristics of a subject during the electronic communications, the computer interface and electronic communications are recited at a high-level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to the computer interface and electronic communications are claimed at all. Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to ([a] character traits estimation system comprising: an interface apparatus coupled to a subject apparatus that is an apparatus including one or a plurality of sensors; and an arithmetic apparatus coupled to the interface apparatus, wherein the arithmetic apparatus provides, to the subject apparatus, provision information including inducement information for inducing a subject to take an action for a purpose different from psychological characteristics estimation, the arithmetic apparatus receives, from the subject apparatus, through the interface apparatus, measurement data relating to the action taken by the subject being induced by the provided inducement information, the measurement data being based on measurement by the one or the plurality of sensors, the arithmetic apparatus specifies subject intention data and related action data based on the measurement data, the action induced by the inducement information includes designation of a subject intention and a related action that is all or a part of actions excluding the designation of the subject intention, the subject intention data is data representing the designated subject intention, the related action data is data representing a related action, the arithmetic apparatus determines one or a plurality of action feature values based on related action data for each of one or a plurality of related actions and estimates psychological characteristics of the subject based on the one or the plurality of action feature values, the arithmetic apparatus outputs estimated psychological characteristics data that is data representing the estimated psychological characteristics, and each of one or more action feature values used to estimate the psychological characteristics of the subject is adjusted information on at least a part of the provided provision information and/or the action feature value enhanced according to an elapsed time, wherein: the arithmetic apparatus enhances, concerning each of the one or more action feature values, the action feature value according to the elapsed time and estimates the psychological characteristics of the subject based on one or a plurality of action feature values including the one or more action feature values respectively enhanced, for at least one psychological characteristics component of the one or more psychological characteristics components of the psychological characteristics of the subject, the arithmetic apparatus selects, one of a first estimation model or a second estimation model based on a model selection policy including an arithmetic load of the arithmetic apparatus and a threshold of the arithmetic load, wherein the first estimation model includes a multiple regression model for each elapsed time, and the second estimation model is a multiple regression model including n multiple regression models corresponding to the n action feature values in a one-to-one relation (where n is an integer equal to or larger than 1), and based on the arithmetic load of the arithmetic apparatus being smaller than the threshold, the first estimation model is selected, and based on the arithmetic load of the arithmetic apparatus being equal to or greater than the threshold, the second estimation model is selected) are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. The structural elements of the present application (i.e. “an interface apparatus”, “a subject apparatus”, “one or a plurality of sensors”, “an arithmetic apparatus”, “one of a first estimation model”, “a second estimation model”, “a multiple regression model(s)”) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more...the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
Further, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The claims are merely estimating character traits of a subject and calculating an estimation and a plurality of action feature values, the structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) and amounts to mathematical calculations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible Mathematical Concepts by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)), (i.e. an interface apparatus coupled to a subject apparatus that is an apparatus including one or a plurality of sensors; and an arithmetic apparatus coupled to the interface apparatus, wherein the arithmetic apparatus provides, to the subject apparatus, the arithmetic apparatus, the arithmetic apparatus selects, one of a first estimation model or a second estimation model based, the first estimation model includes a multiple regression model, the second estimation model is a multiple regression model including n multiple regression models) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for mathematical concepts for mathematical formulas or equations
). These steps also amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior, (i.e. analyzing a plurality of processes, identifying similarities, detecting when a new process is added, displaying the similarities, generating a notification and preventing implementation) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment. Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
With regards to BASCOM, BASCOM was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B (does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea) of the two-part framework outlined in MPEP §2106; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, Applicant’s invention aims toward based on the arithmetic load of the arithmetic apparatus being smaller than the threshold, the first estimation model is selected. Alternatively, when the arithmetic load of the arithmetic apparatus is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second estimation model is selected and does not aim to solve a technological problem. The specification is silent in regards to improving the additional elements recited in the claims. Examiner finds, Applicants have not identified anything in the claimed invention that shows or submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves.
The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field — the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’|, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Personalized Monitoring and Healthcare Information Management Using Physiological Basis Functions (US 20110004110 A1) teaches Analysis of individual's serial changes, also referred to as the physiological, pathophysiological, medical or health dynamics, is the backbone of medical diagnosis, monitoring and patient healthcare management. However, such an analysis is complicated by enormous intra-individual and inter-individual variability. To address this problem, a novel serial-analysis method and system based on the concept of personalized basis functions (PBFs) is disclosed. Due to more accurate reference information provided by the PBFs, individual's changes associated with specific physiological activity or a sequence, transition or combination of activities (for example, a transition from sleep to wakefulness and transition from rest to exercise) can be monitored more accurately.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6PM.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights