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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 September 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10 September has been entered. Claim(s) 1- are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the claims and each and every rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 29 July.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each claim, it is recommended that “in descending order of similarity to the second body movement information” be amended to recite “in descending order of similarity between the first body movement information and the second body movement information” or similar for clarity as the current phrasing may be read as a similarity between the response content and the second body movement information.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "(i) estimate an emotion change of the user resulting from performing a response indicated by the response content, based on the emotion information associated with the first body movement information, and perform labeling on the first body movement information based on an estimation result; (ii) perform processing of presenting, when having acquired a request including second body movement information serving as the time series body movement information, similar information including a similarity between the second body movement information and the first body movement information, and the response content being associated with the first body movement information” and “wherein the similarity is calculated based on at least one of an average value, a variance, or a distance between aligned waveform segments". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, machine. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In claim 1, the limitations "(i) estimate an emotion change of the user resulting from performing a response indicated by the response content, based on the emotion information associated with the first body movement information, and perform labeling on the first body movement information based on an estimation result; (ii) perform processing of presenting, when having acquired a request including second body movement information serving as the time series body movement information, similar information including a similarity between the second body movement information and the first body movement information, and the response content being associated with the first body movement information” and “wherein the similarity is calculated based on at least one of an average value, a variance, or a distance between aligned waveform segments" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process as estimating an emotion change and labeling information may be done by viewing received data (such as an image of a user) and making a judgment, while calculating an average, variance, or distance between aligned segments to determine a similarity for presenting can be done in the human mind as a mathematical calculation. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements “a receiver configured to acquire: (i) based on image information obtained by imaging a user, emotion information indicating an emotion of the user; and (ii) based on an output from a pressure sensor that includes a sheet-shaped sensor disposed between a bed and a mattress and configured to detect body vibrations of the user via the mattress, body movement information including information related to a sleep state of the user; a memory configured to store information in which a response content performed by a skilled worker to the user has been associated with first body movement information serving as the time series body movement information” and “(iii) present, on a terminal device for an unskilled worker, the response content and a numerical value of the similarity ranked in descending order of similarity to the second body movement information, based on the labeling performed on the first body movement information, the response content and the numerical value of the similarity constituting a recommendation for a care response enabling the unskilled worker to perform the care response independent of the unskilled worker's degree of proficiency”. However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The measurement step leads to the final limitation of “processing of presenting” and “presenting” such that the end result of use of the system is only the generic recommendation. As this is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere generation of data, in this case the measurement of data relating to body movement of a user who receives care assistance, such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application. Regarding “a processor”, the limitation amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, which does not render an abstract idea eligible. The steps performed by the processing unit are, as claimed, capable of being performed in the human mind similar to the examples given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(C), wherein it is described that “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” recites a mental process and that claims which merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are not eligible when “there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper” such as “mental processes of parsing and comparing data” when the steps are recited at a high level of generality and a computer is used merely as a tool to perform the processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step of the process may be performed by a person in an undefined manner including making a mental judgment of similarity) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception. The limitation of “a receiver”, “a memory”, “a processor” and “a terminal device” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding a generic memory, processor, and interface device, which Dean (US 20230165728 A1) describes as well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description of common, commercially available computing elements such as processors and memory (Paragraph 0190-0192, 0203-0207-- Such processors may comprise a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and state machines… Examples of non-transitory computer-readable medium may include, but are not limited to, an electronic, optical, magnetic, or other storage device capable of providing a processor, such as the processor in a web server, with processor-executable instructions) as well as client devices including display interfaces for enabling interaction with health and wellbeing information (Paragraph 0060, 0070-0071-- the client devices 105 may include a stand-alone interface (e.g., a cellular telephone, a smartphone, a home computer, a laptop computer, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing device, a wearable device such as a smart watch, a wall panel, a keypad, or the like), an interface that is built into an appliance or other device (e.g., a television, a refrigerator, a security system, a game console, a browser, or the like), a speech or gesture interface (e.g., a Kinect™ sensor, a Wiimote™, or the like), an IoT device interface (e.g., an Internet enabled appliance such as a medical device, a control interface, or other suitable interface), or the like… client devices 105 may comprise a graphical user interface (GUI) or a browser application provided on a display (e.g., monitor screen, LCD or LED display, projector, etc.)). It is additionally noted that the claim language does not presently positively recite as part of the apparatus, “a pressure sensor that includes a sheet-shaped sensor disposed between a bed and a mattress and configured to detect body vibrations of the user via the mattress” but instead only recites that a received must be configured to receive data from such a pressure sensor. However, such an element is additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional as evidenced by each of Correa (US 20200178887 A1, paragraph 0073-0076), Sayadi (US 20190209405 A1, paragraph 0197), and Tsoneva (US 20190192068 A1, paragraph 0024) disclosing such a sensing configuration, as well as Malakuti (“Towards an Intelligent Bed Sensor”, page 14-15) which describes that among known approaches to in-bed monitoring are pressure sensitive sheet sensors positioned below a mattress for monitoring respiration, posture, movements, apnea, and snoring via vibrations of the mattress, where in each reference such a pressure sensing system is utilized in conjunction with common computing elements of processors and memory to analyze data from the sensing system. Rayman (US 20160270721 A1, paragraph 0004) additionally describes such as system as known in the art of infant monitoring, which is applicable as analogous to general dependent monitoring for caregiver support.
In Summary, claim 1 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 1, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 6 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 1, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 1.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 1: claims 2-5 recite additional elements for the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step; claim 6 recites additional elements of extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as well as additional limitations of the abstract idea, in this case “processing of correcting the first reference point and the second reference point” which may be performed in the mind as a simple mathematical transform; claim 7 recites additional elements of extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as well as additional limitations of the abstract idea, in this case “determin[ing] a degree of priority” which may be performed in the mind; claim 11 recites additional limitations which are themselves abstract ideas, as aligning time axes and obtaining similarity may be performed in the mind. The claim element of claim 1 of an information processing apparatus is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the actions of the processing unit may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). This limitation provides no practical application, nor does it provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. It is additionally noted that In Step 2B, claims 9 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception. The limitation of “a pressure sensor configured to detect body vibrations of a user” and “a terminal device” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding sheet-shaped sensor disposed between a bed and a mattress and configured to detect vibrations which is well-understood, routine, or conventional as evidenced by each of Correa (US 20200178887 A1, paragraph 0073-0076), Sayadi (US 20190209405 A1, paragraph 0197), and Tsoneva (US 20190192068 A1, paragraph 0024) disclosing such a sensing configuration, as well as Malakuti (“Towards an Intelligent Bed Sensor”, page 14-15) which describes that among known approaches to in-bed monitoring are pressure sensitive sheet sensors positioned below a mattress for monitoring respiration, posture, movements, apnea, and snoring via vibrations of the mattress, where in each reference such a pressure sensing system is utilized in conjunction with common computing elements of processors and memory to analyze data from the sensing system. Rayman (US 20160270721 A1, paragraph 0004) additionally describes such as system as known in the art of infant monitoring, which is applicable as analogous to general dependent monitoring for caregiver support.
Claims 12-17 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 2-7 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that when the claims are considered as a whole, the limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind and should not be characterized as a mental process. In support, the applicant argues that the similarity calculation is performed on specific time-series body movement data and the result is used to rank specific care response content, where no person can mentally continuously acquire time-series data through a mattress-mounted pressure sensor, retrieve a database of skilled-worker response content associated with time-series body movement data, estimate emotion changes from image-based emotion information and apply labeling to stored data, calculate average values, variances, or distances between aligned waveforms, and rank and present the results on a terminal device.
However, it is noted that the claim language does not require continuous acquisition or analysis of data and that the receiving of data itself is not a mental process, but is directed to mere data gathering for use in the mental process as described above. As such, the human mind need not be capable of acquiring data from a sensor or retrieving a database, as each of these steps is extra-solution activity and may be seen as merely providing data to be manipulated and analyzed, which is a mental process. Likewise, “presenting” may be seen as mere data output, which is also extra-solution activity. While the applicant argues that no person can estimate emotion changes, apply labeling to stored data, calculate averages, variances, or distances, and ranking data, each of these steps may be performed in the human mind based on received data, as the claim provides no limitation which would preclude it from being performed in the mind via performing normal calculations and comparisons (such as averaging, or comparing numerical values of similarity, respectively), or making judgments such as estimating emotion changes from viewing images of a patient’s face or applying labeling to stored data such as by considering which data points occur at times where a patient’s face demonstrates emotional changes. No detail has been provided regarding how each of these steps should take place which would prevent them from being done in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper, nor does the claim require that the amount of data is so vast and the processing time so short that a human being would not be practically capable of performing these steps.
The applicant additionally argues that the claim is directed to a specific improvement in care-assistance technology, specifically by enabling an unskilled worker to perform an appropriate care response to a patient’s condition independent of the proficiency of the care worker. The applicant additionally argues that the ordered combination of additional elements amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is not well-understood, routine, or conventional and produces a non-routine technical result.
However, the inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself. Under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered abstract idea cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. As a result, the argument that the claim is directed to an improvement cannot rely upon the steps of estimating emotion changes, applying data labeling, calculating similarity, and the implicit requirement of ranking response content with numerical similarity which have been identified above as abstract. The additional elements of acquiring body vibration data, storing response content, and presenting content do not appear to provide a particular improvement in care-assistance technology nor amount to significantly more as they recite merely the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output as described above in this action.
The applicant additionally argues that the claim recites a particular machine which is integral to the claim, specifically the user of a sheet-shaped pressure sensor disposed between a bed and a mattress configured to detect body vibrations of a user via the mattress.
However, claim 1 in particular does not appear to positively recite this sensor as part of the apparatus. Furthermore, as described above, the particular sensor configuration appears to be well-understood, routine, or conventional as described by various references in the same field of endeavor and analogous art. The examiner agrees that the Meger reference, specifically, is insufficient to recite the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed pressure sensor; the Meger reference has been replaced with alternatives.
The applicant additionally argues that the new limitation of “estimate an emotion change of the user…” effects a concrete transformation of stored data records which constitutes a practical application. In particular, the applicant argues that labeling as claimed is not a mental process and produces a classification stored in the database. However, these limitations may be performed in the human mind such as by making judgments such as estimating emotion changes from viewing images of a patient’s face or applying labeling to stored data such as by considering which data points occur at times where a patient’s face demonstrates emotional changes.
The applicant additionally argues that the ranked presentation of response content does not describe generic output but rather a specific structured output and produces a concrete, real-world result beyond mere output of data.
As described above in this action, the implicit step of ranking the response content in descending order of similarity may be considered a mental process, while the presentation of such ranked content remains a generic output resulting from the abstract idea such that it constitutes extra-solution activity and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, merely enabling appropriate care via a recommendation is not a practical application. The claimed limitations do not require that any action be taken in response to the recommendation, or at all, such as automatically changing a bed parameter in response, and any process simply ends with the output of a recommendation which relies upon a caretaker to observe and act upon the recommendation or choose to ignore it. For this reason, no concrete result or outcome is seen to occur and the limitation is not seen as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The claims are not currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the most pertinent prior art of the record Dean (US 20230165728 A1) generally discloses obtaining image information (Paragraph 0075) but is silent regarding acquiring emotion information or estimating an emotion change of the user. McNair (US 12488892 B1) generally discloses estimating a change of the user resulting from performing a response indicated by the response content (Fig. 4D; Col. 37, line 53-67 and Col. 38, line 32-48-- At a step 4340, determining a change in the condition of first patient), but is silent as to acquiring emotion information or estimating an emotion change of a user resulting from performing a response.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the most pertinent prior art of the record Dean (cited above) generally teaches to acquire, from an environment detection device disposed in a surrounding of the user, environment information indicating an environment in the surrounding (Paragraph 0062, 0094-0095) but is silent as to perform processing of correcting the first reference point and the second reference point based on a changing amount of the environment information per unit time. McNair is similarly silent as to perform processing of correcting the first reference point and the second reference point based on a changing amount of the environment information per unit time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 EST.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights