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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
Step 1: Do the claims recite one of the statutory categories of matter (i.e. method, apparatus, etc.)? YES, claims 1-15 and 17 recite apparatuses and claim 16 recites a method
Step 2A Prong 1: Is there an abstract idea involved? YES, the claim language recites sensing a change in state of a reactant on a basis of a time-series record of reactions made by the reactant to at least one predetermined input pattern executed by an input body. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. For example, a trained physician could analyze and make determinations about input patterns.
Step 2a Prong 2: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? NO, the claims recite a sensing unit (processor) and an input body (sensor) are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing and display. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process) or to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the additional elements amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception? The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic (JP 6263308 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Panasonic discloses an Information processing apparatus comprising a state sensing unit that senses a change in state of a reactant on a basis of a time-series record of reactions made by the reactant to at least one predetermined input pattern executed by an input body (eg. Para. 45, 48, 96-97, Fig. 8), wherein the predetermined input pattern is an event that repeatedly occurs in an environment in which the reactant lives (eg. Para. 85, 96-97, 101, Fig. 8-13, multiple embodiments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the embodiments of Panasonic to provide multiple ways of determining a dementia level.
Regarding claim 2, Panasonic discloses information processing apparatus according to wherein the predetermined input pattern includes a word or action by the input body to the reactant (Eg. Para. 50-59, 74-76, 84, 90-91, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Panasonic discloses the predetermined input pattern includes at least any one of a greeting, request, or question by the input body to the reactant (Eg. Para. 50-59, 74-76, 84, 90-91, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Panasonic discloses the state sensing unit senses a change in mental state of the reactant on a basis of the time-series record of reactions made by the reactant (eg. Para. 9, 18-19, 32-36, 102-113 Fig. 8-13 and related paragraphs).
Regarding claim 5, Panasonic discloses the state sensing unit senses a sign of a mental illness of the reactant on a basis of the time-series record of reactions made by the reactant (eg. Para. 9, 18-19, 32-36, 102-113 Fig. 8-13 and related paragraphs).
Regarding claim 6, Panasonic discloses wherein the mental illness includes at least any one of dementia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, or depression (eg. Para. 9, 18-19, 32-36, 102-113 Fig. 8-13 and related paragraphs, dementia).
Regarding claim 7, Panasonic discloses the state sensing unit senses a change in state of the reactant on a basis of a time-series record of reactions made by the reactant to a same the predetermined input pattern executed by a same the input body (eg. Para. 9, 18-19, 32-36, 54, 81, 96-97, 102-113 Fig. 8-13 and related paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Panasonic discloses the state sensing unit senses a change in state of the reactant to be sensed, further on a basis of a time-series record of reactions made by another reactant different from the reactant to be sensed (eg. Para. 97, 102-113 stores history of various patients with associated times and dates).
Regarding claim 9, Panasonic discloses the another reactant includes an individual diagnosed as having a predetermined state (eg. Para. 97, 102-113 other dementia patients).
Regarding claim 10, Panasonic discloses a presentation control unit that controls presentation of a result of sensing by the state sensing unit (eg. Fig. 8-12 and associated paragraphs, Para. 23, 29, 95, 98-99).
Regarding claim 11, Panasonic discloses presentation control unit performs control so that sensed the change in state of the reactant is presented to a manager who manages the state of the reactant (eg. H2, Para. 17-23 101).
Regarding claim 12, Panasonic discloses the presentation control unit controls presentation of a time-series record of reactions made by the reactant to the predetermined input pattern (eg. Para. 29, 95, 98-99).
Regarding claim 14, Panasonic discloses an input pattern identification unit that identifies the predetermined input pattern on a basis of sensor information collected for the input body (eg. Para. 46).
Regarding claim 15, Panasonic discloses the reactant includes at least a care receiver (eg. Para. 102-113, patient H1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic (JP 6263308 B1) in view of Peters (US 11049605 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Panasonic discloses the invention of claim 1, but does not disclose control unit controls presentation of a proposal for improvement with respect to sensed the change in state of the reactant.
Peters teaches using voice patterns as biomarkers for levels of dementia and generating medical recipes for the treatment and/or prevention of dementia (eg. Col. 7, Ln. 42-60, Col. 13, Ln. 19-39, claim 11, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Panasonic to display the medical recipes as taught by Peters to provide the predictable result of adding a treatment step for dementia prevention/treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/MICHAEL J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights