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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 26 December 2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-14 have been amended.
Claims 3-4 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 26 December 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides technical solutions to two technical problems.
First, applicant argues that the claims recite a particular solution to a data loss problem by estimating the lost data by calculating a similarity between waveform patterns of acceleration data and predefined patterns improving the computer capabilities. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The description in the specification describes that the specific architectural choice of relying on discrete electronic entries creates data streams that are prone to interruption or data loss. The ability to estimate data for time periods when data is lost does not functionally or structurally improve the computer capabilities nor does it actually solve the problem of data continuity loss in data streams. The ability to estimate data for time periods when data is lost enables the operation plan to still be created while data loss exists, but does not actually realize a technical solution to the data loss created by the data streams that are prone to interruption.
Furthermore, applicant argues that the data filtering provides a specific technical solution to the problem of data corruption that occurs and is inherent to obtaining physiological sensor data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is more specific than the limitations set forth in the claims. The claim does not detail a filtering process it merely recites that the mental load amount is estimated by comparing biological information, excluding information of a time period during which a behavior predefined in the living behavior has been performed. The details of how the time period is determined, how a particular behavior is identified or how the exclusion of such information is done is not actively recited in the claims. The claim does not specify capabilities or details of the apparatus or functions that realize an improvement that solves the problem of data corruption.
The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. See MPEP 2106.04d1.
The 101 rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-2 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 recite limitations obtain biological information, determine whether a lost time period exists during which information is lost, in response estimate information during the lost time period by calculating a similarity between waveform patterns, estimating a mental load amount by comparing information with a threshold, creating a temporary operation plan and operation plan, and adding an increment to a mental load amount to calculate a cumulative amount and changing the plan accordingly. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Obtaining data, making determinations, calculating similarities, estimating amounts, evaluating data, making plans and adding values/calculating a cumulative value set forth a series of observations and evaluations that could be done the same way mentally or manually with pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including a processing circuitry configured to obtain data and output results, as well as an circuitry configured to execute the determining, calculating, estimating, comparing, creating steps, adding, changing and calculating. The obtaining and outputting circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The circuitry that performs the abstract idea steps is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates those steps. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a generic computer environment. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the obtaining and outputting steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the circuitry is anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2, 5-9 and 11-14 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including describing changes to the increment, plan, and data comparisons to thresholds, and estimates. The additional elements merely apply the steps using generically recited circuitry. The elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2 and 5-14 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Distinguishable over Prior Art
Applicant’s claims define over the prior art of record because the prior art of record taken individually or in combination, does not teach obtaining biological and living behavior information of an operator at work and non-work times, attributes and production planning information of the operator which are used to estimate the mental load of an operator by comparing biological information excluding the biological information of a time period during which a behavior predefined in the living behavior has been performed, creating a temporary operational plan based on the attributes and production planning information and adding to a mental load amount, an increment of the mental load amount which is associated in advance with an operation to be planned in the temporary plan to calculate a cumulative estimated mental load amount and changing the temporary plan based on the cumulative amount.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623