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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 03/30/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 have been amended. Now, claims1-20 remain pending.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims. As amendment, the claims recite steps of transmitting a command regarding measurement of biological information to one of a selection of measurement devices, that operates the particular measurement device, and terminates an established connection with the device. The controlled operation of the particular measurement device improves the operation of the measurement device and reduces power consumption of the measurement device (see paragraph 0058 of the specification). This integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0035306.
As per claim 1, Miller teaches an information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are 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); based on a result of the determination, search for a measurement device located in proximity to a current location of the user (see column 30, lines 4-23; determines a proximity of a peripheral device to a user device); establish a connection with the measurement device (see column 25, lines 15-21; an interface to activate and connect measurement devices); transmit, via the connection, a command regarding measurement of the biological information of the user to the measurement device (see column 29, lines 54-63; issues a request for a confirming measurement); wherein the measurement device includes a thermometer, a heart rate meter, a body composition meter, a blood glucose self-measuring device, or a wearable terminal including a sensor that measures a heart rate or arterial blood oxygen saturation (see column 17, lines 62-66; pulse oximeter, thermometer, glucometer, etc.); wherein the measurement device is configured to be operated according to the command (see column 29, lines 53-63; confirming command operates measurement device).
Miller does not explicitly teach and, wherein the measurement device is not associated with the information processing apparatus in that the connection with the measurement device is established only during communication for transmitting the command, and a pre-setting for the connection is not performed outside the communication; and terminate the connection after transmitting the command; and wherein termination of the connection is caused by the command.
Quinn teaches a measurement device not associated with an information processing apparatus in that the connection with the measurement device is established only during communication for transmitting the command, and a pre-setting for the connection is not performed outside the communication (see paragraph 0041; computing device or sensor management system continues to monitor data received from the biological sensor only during communication with the biological senor, which is subsequently disabled); and terminate the connection after transmitting the command; and wherein termination of the connection is caused by the command (see paragraph 0042; computing device or sensor management system sends wireless instructions o the biological sensor to disable communications). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include connection termination with sensors in the system of Miller with the motivation of improving battery power with less frequent communications (see paragraph 0100 of Quinn).
As per claim 2, Miller and Quinn 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 one or more processors are 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the p one or more processors are 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 and Quinn 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 and Quinn 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 6 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 and Quinn 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 and Quinn 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 one or more processors are 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 and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 and Quinn 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 and Quinn 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 one or more processors are 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 and Quinn 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 and Quinn 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(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 Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0035306 and further in view of Holma, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0256741.
As per claim 12, Miller and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the one or more processors are 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 Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0035306 and further in view of Goldberg, US Patent No. 8,165,893.
As per claim 14, Miller and Quinn teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Miller does not explicitly teach the one or more processors are 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026 are moot for the following reasons. With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, these arguments are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn for the reasons given above. With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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.
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