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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 8/5/2025 in which claims 1-20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 of displaying guidance in accordance with the state of each of the recommended measuring period signal, the report signal, and the best timing signal without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that represents the invention described in independent claims 1 and 16-20.
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus comprising at least one first measurement apparatus that is a wearable terminal including a sensor, and that measures first biological information over time related to each of a plurality of subjects; at least one second measurement apparatus that measures second biological information different from the first biological information; and an information processing apparatus including at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the first biological information from the at least one first measurement apparatus; for each subject, derive a timing suitable for measuring the second biological information of the subject based on the first biological information; schedule a period for measuring the second biological information for each subject based on the derived timing; and display the scheduled period for measuring the second biological information on a display of the information processing apparatus, wherein a recommended measuring period signal has a state of 1 during a recommended measuring period suitable for measuring the second biological information, a report signal reports a start and an end of the recommended measuring period by transitioning in state before a transition of the state of the recommended measuring period signal, and a best timing signal as a state of 1 at a time point that is most suitable for measuring the second biological information, and wherein the processor is further configured to display guidance on the display, in accordance with the state of each of the recommended measuring period signal, the report signal, and the best timing signal. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of displaying guidance in accordance with the state of each of the recommended measuring period signal, the report signal, and the best timing signal which corresponds to a certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. The additional elements of a measurement apparatus, a wearable terminal, sensor, a processor, and a display do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a measurement apparatus, a wearable terminal, sensor, a processor, and a display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a measurement apparatus, a wearable terminal, sensor, a processor, and a display are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitation of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a measurement apparatus, a wearable terminal, sensor, a processor, and a display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a measurement apparatus, a wearable terminal, sensor, a processor, and a display are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 further define the abstract idea that is present in the respective independent claims 1 and 16-20 and thus correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. Dependent claim 15 and independent claims 16-18 also recite a first and second measurement apparatus which is recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea. The first/second apparatus of claims 15-18 do not provide any technical/technology improvement and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. The remaining dependent claims 2-14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-15 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has withdrawn 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that amended claim 1 to recite aspects of the method in Figs. 5 and 6, and paragraphs [0041]-[0042], which describe L, M and N signal transitions in accordance with blood glucose changes. These signal transitions are not abstract mental operations and are a “specific means” of achieving the improved results of the application, as in Contour IP Holding. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that these improvements are not technical in nature. The improvements may be to an abstract idea and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684