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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application PCT/JP2022/009256 is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 and 19-20 (claim 1 representative) recite acquire first information including biological information of a user; determine whether or not the biological information included in the first information satisfies a predetermined condition; and issue, to a measurement apparatus that measures the biological information of the user and that is not associated with the information processing apparatus, a command regarding the measurement according to a result of the determination.
These limitations, as drafted encompass managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass a user acquiring user biological information, determining whether it satisfies a condition, and sending a command. Note that sending a command to the measurement apparatus does not require an operation by the apparatus, only the action of a user to send the command. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-18 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claim 2 further defines the first information and condition. Claims 3-4 further define the issuing the command, which as explained above, is part of the abstract idea. Claims 6-7 further expand on the command and repeating the process of claim 1. These steps recite the abstract idea as explained above. Claims 8-9 recite the additional steps of receiving information from the user, which is used to determine and set a type of biological information. This further expands on the managing persona behavior described above. Claims 10-11 further expand on the condition and using threshold values to determine a classification of the biological information to issue the command. This further expands on the managing persona behavior described above. Claims 12-13 further expand on issuing the command, which is part of the abstract idea identified above. Claim 14 further includes the step of settling a usage fee, which is a fundamental economic practice and part of the above abstract idea. Claims 15-18 further expand on the biological information and acquiring the biological information, which are part of the abstract idea identified above. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with adding elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 1-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea. Note that steps of issuing the command to a measurement apparatus, but not executing the command on the apparatus, are part of the abstract idea as explained above:
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to…
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16:
the processor is configured to…
Claim 12:
establish connection with the measurement apparatus…release connection with the measurement apparatus.
Claim 16:
a first measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user.
Claim 17:
at least one second measurement apparatus that measures biological information
Claim 19:
An information processing method executed by a computer.
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing.
The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “the information processing apparatus 10, for example, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, a tablet terminal, a personal computer, a server computer, and the like can be used” (see paragraph 0037). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 17-18, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering and transmitting activity:
Claim 17:
at least one second measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user in response to a command from the information processing apparatus.
Claim 18:
at least one first measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user.
at least one second measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user in response to a command from the information processing apparatus.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a measuring apparatus measuring biological information encompasses extra solution gathering of the information. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. receiving information) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller, US Patent No. 11,766,221.
As per claim 1, Miller teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire first information including biological information of a user (see column 20, lines 14-17; cloud server receives measurement information); determine whether or not the biological information included in the first information satisfies a predetermined condition (see column 29, lines 51-53; identifies whether measurement indicates a critical health event); and issue, to a measurement apparatus that measures the biological information of the user and that is not associated with the information processing apparatus, a command regarding the measurement according to a result of the determination (see column 29, lines 54-63; issues a request for a confirming measurement. The measurement device requested to perform the confirming measurement is a different device than the device that generates the request is encompassed by “not associated”).
As per claim 2, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the first information includes a plurality of pieces of different types of biological information, the condition is predetermined for each type of the biological information, and the processor is configured to determine whether or not at least one of the plurality of pieces of biological information included in the first information satisfies the condition (see column 30, lines 29-45; example of different types of biological information are a sampling rate of an invasive glucose measurement and a non-invasive glucose measurement. The biological information is analyzed with respect to fasting and non-fasting times to identify low sampling rate (satisfies condition), and sampling rate is adjusted based on analysis).
As per claim 3, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to issue, to each of a plurality of measurement apparatuses that measure the same type of biological information, the command according to the result of the determination (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
As per claim 4, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to issue, to each of a plurality of measurement apparatuses that measure different types of biological information, the command according to the result of the determination (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
As per claim 5, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the command is an instruction to cause the measurement apparatus to measure the biological information of the user (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; confirming measurement is taken from one of the listed measurement apparatuses).
As per claim 6, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the command is an instruction to transmit the biological information of the user measured by the measurement apparatus to the information processing apparatus (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; confirming measurement is taken from one of the listed measurement apparatuses).
As per claim 7, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 6 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to: acquire the biological information of the user measured by the measurement apparatus in response to the command (see column 20, lines 14-17; cloud server receives measurement information); determine whether or not the biological information satisfies the predetermined condition (see column 29, lines 51-53; identifies whether measurement indicates a critical health event); and issue, to a measurement apparatus different from the measurement apparatus, a command regarding the measurement of the biological information of the user according to the result of the determination (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
As per claim 8, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to receive designation by the user for at least one of a type of the biological information used for the determination or a type of biological information of a candidate for measurement by the measurement apparatus (see column 27, lines 35-38; user inputs instructions for invasive analyte device to perform measurement for processing).
As per claim 9, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to: receive a user’s intention regarding health management of the user (see column 26, lines 18-22; user may set health goals); and set at least one of a type of the biological information used for the determination or a type of biological information of a candidate for measurement by the measurement apparatus according to the user’s intention (see column 44, lines 31-43; certain health goals, such as blood glucose goals, employ certain types of biological information measured by the measurement apparatus).
As per claim 10, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the condition relates to a predetermined threshold value for the biological information included in the first information (see column 29, lines 51-53; identifies whether measurement indicates a critical health event).
As per claim 11, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 10 as described above. Miller further teaches a plurality of threshold values are defined in a stepwise manner, and the processor is configured to: determine a classification of the biological information included in the first information using the plurality of threshold values; and issue the command according to the classification (see column 29 line 51 – column 30, line 3; critical health event identified based on invasive, non-invasive, and/or physiological characteristic measurements (i.e. stepwise threshold values to identify critical health event); classification of the biological information is determined according to the aforementioned measurements; classification identifies the measurement device that will have the confirmation command issued).
As per claim 13, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to: search for the measurement apparatus present near a current location of the user; and issue the command to the measurement apparatus (see column 58, line 57 – column 59, line 4; identifies wearable device (one of the devices that may receive a command) at a location near the user).
As per claim 15, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the biological information indicates at least one of a body temperature, a heart rate, an electrocardiogram, an electromyogram, blood pressure, arterial blood oxygen saturation, a weight, a body fat percentage, a muscle mass, a bone density, a blood glucose level, a result of a hematological examination, a result of an infectious disease examination, a result of a biochemical examination, or a result of a urine examination (see column 4, lines 32 – 50; blood glucose being one example of the type of biological information).
As per claim 16, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches a first measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the first information including the biological information of the user measured by the first measurement apparatus (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
As per claim 17, Miller teaches an information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 16; and at least one second measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user in response to a command from the information processing apparatus (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
As per claim 18, Miller teaches an information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; at least one first measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user and that transmits the first information including the measured biological information to the information processing apparatus (see column 28, line 66 – column 29, line 6; data acquired from measurement devices to perform data analysis); and at least one second measurement apparatus that measures biological information of the user in response to a command from the information processing apparatus (see column 29, line 59 – column 30, line 3; command to confirm measurement may be issued to a plurality of devices that measure a same or different type of biological information, based on the type of condition that was satisfied).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar method limitations to apparatus claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar computer medium limitations to apparatus claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, US Patent No. 11,766,221 in view of Holma, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0256741.
As per claim 12, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the processor is configured to: establish connection with the measurement apparatus before issuing the command to the measurement apparatus (see column 15, lines 12-25; describes different types of connections, including Bluetooth, that may be established for communication between devices). Miller does not explicitly teach release the connection with the measurement apparatus after issuing the command to the measurement apparatus. Holma teaches establishing connections and disconnecting between devices, including devices for measuring biological data (see paragraphs 0025 and 0063; describes establishing wireless connections with measurement devices and disconnecting with the measurement devices). Since Miller also uses Bluetooth connections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to implement the connection/disconnection process of Holma in the measurement process of Miller with the motivation of enabling different connections to different devices (see paragraph 0063 of Holma), which is also used in the communication with measurement apparatuses of Miller.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, US Patent No. 11,766,221 in view of Goldberg, US Patent No. 8,165,893.
As per claim 14, Miller teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller does not explicitly teach the processor is configured to settle a usage fee before issuing the command to the measurement apparatus. Goldberg teaches settle a usage fee before issuing a command to a measurement apparatus (see column 2, lines 28-40; establishes healthcare groups with fees to be paid for service; column 4, lines 61-67; subsequently portable device collects measurements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to process fees for the services of Miller with the motivation of encouraging and enabling lower costs for the health care services in Miller (see column 2, lines 28-40 of Goldberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kang, European Patent Application EP 3061390 A1, discloses a wearable biological measurement device and comparison of measurements to a threshold.
Tahara, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0076064, discloses a system for using multiple, different vital data measurement devices.
Eggers, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0172424, discloses multiple biological measuring devices to detect and confirm a cardiac event.
Ding et al., Medical Remote Monitoring of Multiple Physiological Parameters Based on Wireless Embedded Internet, discloses remote, internet-based control of biological measuring devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights