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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are pending.
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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 9), machine (claims 1-7), and article of manufacture (claim 10). Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-10 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A lifestyle improvement system comprising:
-a server,
-a first terminal possessed by a first user who receives support for lifestyle improvement,
wherein the first terminal comprises:
-one or more first memories; and
-at least one first processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more first
memories and configured to:
-detect a first frequency with which the first user views a first health management
application installed thereon, and
-transmit the first frequency to the server, and
-a second terminal possessed by a second user who supports the lifestyle improvement of the first user, wherein the second terminal comprises:
-one or more second memories; and
-at least one second processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more second memories and configured to:
-detect a second frequency with which the second user views a second health
management application installed thereon, and
-transmit the second frequency to the server, wherein:
-the server comprises:
-one or more third memories; and
-at least one third processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more third
memories and configured to:
-obtain a first stage of behavior change of the first user and a second stage of behavior change of the second user, wherein the first stage of behavior change is determined based on the first frequency and the second stage of behavior change is determined based on the second frequency;
-compare the first stage of behavior change and the second stage of behavior change and identify a difference between the first stage of behavior change and the second stage of behavior change; and
-in response to identifying the difference, notify a low-evaluated user with first support information, the low-evaluated user being a user whose stage of behavior change is evaluated low among the first user and the second user, the first support information corresponding to the stage of behavior change of the low-evaluated user and to the difference, the first support information being for raising the stage of behavior change of the low-evaluated user.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because managing a user’s behavior change and notifying users of the difference in change is managing personal behavior and managing interactions between people.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because comparing behavior change based on analysis of behavior can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A lifestyle improvement system comprising:
-a server (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 71),
-a first terminal possessed by a first user who receives support for lifestyle improvement,
wherein the first terminal comprises (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 113):
-one or more first memories (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 113); and
-at least one first processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more first
memories (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 113) and configured to:
-detect a first frequency with which the first user views a first health management
application installed thereon, and
-transmit the first frequency to the server (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 121), and
-a second terminal possessed by a second user who supports the lifestyle improvement of the first user, wherein the second terminal comprises (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 113):
-one or more second memories; and
-at least one second processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more second memories (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 113) and configured to:
-detect a second frequency with which the second user views a second health
management application installed thereon, and
-transmit the second frequency to the server (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 121), wherein:
-the server comprises (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 71-72):
-one or more third memories (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 71-72); and
-at least one third processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more third
memories (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 71-72) and configured to:
-obtain a first stage of behavior change of the first user and a second stage of behavior change of the second user, wherein the first stage of behavior change is determined based on the first frequency and the second stage of behavior change is determined based on the second frequency;
-compare the first stage of behavior change and the second stage of behavior change and identify a difference between the first stage of behavior change and the second stage of behavior change; and
-in response to identifying the difference, notify a low-evaluated user with first support information, the low-evaluated user being a user whose stage of behavior change is evaluated low among the first user and the second user, the first support information corresponding to the stage of behavior change of the low-evaluated user and to the difference, the first support information being for raising the stage of behavior change of the low-evaluated user.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims
9-10 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims
9-10 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2, 4: The claim specifies memories storing and processor for determining, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 3: The claim specifies comparing and notifying using a processor, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 5: The claim specifies first and second stage behavior change determinants, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6: The claim specifies the stage of behavior change, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 7: The claim specifies first support information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 and 9-10 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as transmit first and second frequency to the server, obtain behavior change, notify, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 and 4, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2, 4 (notifies), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2, 4 (storage), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-7 and 9-10
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim recites a particular machine. Examiner disagrees. While the claims require various terminals and servers, which are in the physical realm of things, it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources to have invented, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Neither the claims nor the specification calls for any parallel processing system different from those available in existing systems. Examiner states that the elements separately, the function performed by the computer is purely conventional. Using a computer to identify and compare data embodies the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform conventional computer functions. Applicant does not assert that there is any unconventional use of a computer, and the use of conventional computer components to perform conventional steps to implement an abstract idea has repeatedly been found to not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (Instructing one to “apply” an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea patent eligible.).
Applicant argues that the server’s feedback based on the frequency of usage is not generic and tailored to both users. Examiner states that data analysis and feedback are basic functions of a computer and therefore considered generic.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 9/18/2025, with respect to prior arts have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-10 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa et al. – JP 2016103177A – Teaches providing support to a target user for meal guidance and providing behavior modification.
Karimli et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0128062 – Teaches analyzing lifestyle of a user to provide personalized lifestyle tasks.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681