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 1-15 remain pending and are examiner herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-15 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.
5. Claims 1-15 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 1-15 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 1-13 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,
calculates 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.
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)).
The above-recited limitations calculating 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.
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”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (providing, receiving, calculating, outputting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0010]-[0015] 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 2-13 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 2 and 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.
Claim 15 recites a recording medium recording a computer program for causing a computer to execute a method. These recitations amount to mere data structures as they do not positively recite any structural components of the system in the body of the claim, and therefore could merely comprise the program code or modules for performing the steps of the invention.
A machine (type of product) is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. A claim that includes terms that imply that the invention is directed to a product, for instance by reciting “a machine comprising…”, but fails to include tangible structural elements or limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation is not limited to a practical application, but rather wholly embraces or encompasses the concept upon which the invention is based. This is impermissible as such claim coverage would extend to every way of applying the abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. Thus, such a claim is therefore non eligible subject matter. Furthermore, Examiner notes that when the claimed invention taken as a whole is directed to a mere task listing, i.e., to only its description or expression, it is descriptive material per se and hence nonstatutory. See MPEP 2106.10(I).
Additionally, with respect to Applicant’s recitation of a recording medium recording a computer program for causing a computer to execute, the specification does not disavow a signal or carrier wave as a possible interpretation of a computer readable medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2111.01. As such, the recording medium recording a computer program could be a signal per se and devoid of physical structure.
Thus, claim 15 must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. Alternatively or additionally, positive recitation of physical structure such as computer hardware elements would also likely overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The ordered combination of limitations in independent claims 1, 14, and 15 stating, in part:
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 calculates 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 is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
a. Flickinger (US Patent App No 2021/0401338)[hereinafter Flickinger];
b. Jung (US Patent App No 2009/0157482)[hereinafter Jung]; -AND-
c. C. Stachl, et al., Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 (30) 17680-17687, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920484117 (2020) [hereinafter Stachl].
Flickinger teaches estimating emotional states, moods, affects of an individual and providing feedback to the individual or others
Jung teaches carry out identifying a member of a population cohort; and indicating at least one behavior in the member of the population cohort.
Stachl teaches that Big Five personality dimensions can be predicted on the basis of six different classes of behavioral information collected via sensor and log data harvested from smartphones.
Neither Flickinger, Jung, nor Stachl consider 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 calculates 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.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
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