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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 04/02/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 21-25, and 27-39 have been amended; claim 26 remains unchanged; and no claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 09/29/2021
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that claim 1 sets forth a specific manner to present a recommendation for relieving depression, namely a first object for executing a first application. Applicant further states that the claim features provide a combination of benefits with respect to presenting a recommendation for relieving depression that would be appreciated by one of skill in the art. Applicant states that there are benefits of 1) ensuring that the first object for executing a first application for providing a first intervention action recommended for relieving depression of a user has the greatest chance of being viewed by the user, 2) ensuring that the fist object for executing the first application for providing the first intervention action recommended for relieving depression for the user is presented with the most efficiency, and 3) making available as secondary intervention action based on identifying that the first intervention action is not performed using the first application within a designated time interval, so as to increase chances of the user receiving an intervention action for relieving depression of the user. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that these are benefits are technical improvements. Firstly, the ensuring of display of information on a device upon activation is an additional element in the 101 analysis but it adds routine activity to the claims as there are references provided by Examiner in the updated 101 rejection section which outline that it is well-known to have information be displayed upon activation via a lock screen and upon interaction with that push notification applications can be activated (points 1) and 2) above). Additionally, making a secondary intervention available (point 3) above) is an extension of the abstract idea. The benefit of increasing a likelihood of a response is a benefit which extends to the other references cited in the 101 rejection section for these features. Furthermore, the intervention is not guaranteed to occur so it may not necessarily affect a person in need of care.
Applicant further cites the 2019 PEG and states that the features of independent claim 1 may provide an improvement to the determination of depression using data and the suggestion of a recommendation to address the determination of depression. Applicant further stresses points 1) – 3) above but these points do not lead towards reasoning why the determination of depression is necessarily being improved. The claims plainly state that data is being obtained and that depression data is being identified. What would the improvement be to detection of depression? As for the improvement towards addressing the depression, Examiner would like to reiterate the response from above in that there is no necessary improvement and furthermore the increased likelihood of a response is a product of adding this additional element feature which was proven to be well-known.
Applicant further states that there is a technical improvement which results in a practical application, but Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasoning above.
Lastly, Applicant argue with respect to the remaining claims as being an extension of claim 1, and therefore deserving of overcoming the 101 for the same reasons argued. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the reasoning applied above applies here as well.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant amended the claims and then argued with respect to these amendments. These arguments are deemed moot in view of the previous art rejections being withdrawn.
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 and 21-39 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. Claims 1 and 21-29 are drawn to a device, claims 30-38 are drawn to a method, and claim 39 is drawn to a media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and 21-39 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a) an electronic device comprising:
a1) a display,
a2) at least one sensor,
a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and
a4) one or more processors comprising processing circuitry, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
1) obtain, via the at least one sensor, sensing data including physical data and psychological data,
2) determine, based on the sensing data, depression data of a user of the electronic device,
3) identify that the depression data is within a reference range,
4) based on the depression data being within the reference range, determine, among b) a plurality of applications stored in the memory, b1) a first application for providing a first intervention action recommended for relieving depression of the user, wherein the first intervention action is identified based on the physical data and the psychological data;
5) activate a setting for displaying a first object executing the first application on a home screen,
6) after the setting for displaying the first object on the home screen is activated, receive, while the display is in an inactive state, an input to switch the display from the inactive state to an active state,
7) based on the input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state while the display is in the inactive state, 7a) display, via the display, the first object for executing the first application on the home screen according to the activated setting,
8) based on identifying that the first intervention action is not performed using the first application within a designated time interval, determine, among the plurality of applications, b2) a second application for providing a second intervention action recommended for relieving depression of the user, the second application being distinct from the first application, and
9) change the first object displayed on the home screen to a second object for executing the second application.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) obtain sensing data including physical data and psychological data, 2) determine, based on the sensing data, depression data of a user of the electronic device, 3) identify that the depression data is within a reference range, 4) based on the depression data being within the reference range, determine, among a plurality of applications, a first application for providing a first intervention action recommended for relieving depression of the user, wherein the first intervention action is identified based on the physical data and the psychological data, 5) activate a setting for displaying a first object executing the first application on a home screen, 7a) display the first object for executing the first application (when an icon on paper) on the home screen according to the activated setting, 8) based on identifying that the first intervention action is not performed using the first application within a designated time interval, determine, among the plurality of applications, a second application (when an icon on paper) for providing a second intervention action recommended for relieving depression of the user, the second application being distinct from the first application, and 9) change the first object displayed on the home screen to a second object for executing the second application. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes determining depression and providing recommendations to address the depression. Independent claims 30 and 39 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 21-29 and 31-38 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 30, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 21-24, 26-27, 31-34, and 36-37 add the additional, functional steps to the claims. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 25, 28-29, 35, and 38 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 21-29 and 31-38 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 30 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a2) at least one sensor, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions and b) a plurality of applications stored in the memory including b1) a first application and b2) a second application to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element step of 6) “after the setting for displaying the first object on the home screen is activated, receive, while the display is in an inactive state, an input to switch the display from the inactive state to an active state” and 7) “based on the input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state while the display is in the inactive state, display, via the display, the first object for executing the first application on the home screen according to the activated setting”.
The a) electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0042] and [0045] where there are generic computer components listed, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The a2) at least one sensor in these steps and the additional element steps of 6) “after the setting for displaying the first object on the home screen is activated, receive, while the display is in an inactive state, an input to switch the display from the inactive state to an active state” and 7) “based on the input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state while the display is in the inactive state, display, via the display, the first object for executing the first application on the home screen according to the activated setting” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering (a2)) and insignificant application (6) and 7)), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the b) a plurality of applications stored in the memory including b1) a first application and b2) a second application in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a2) at least one sensor, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions and b) a plurality of applications stored in the memory including b1) a first application and b2) a second application to perform the claimed steps and the additional element steps of 6) “after the setting for displaying the first object on the home screen is activated, receive, while the display is in an inactive state, an input to switch the display from the inactive state to an active state” and 7) “based on the input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state while the display is in the inactive state, display, via the display, the first object for executing the first application on the home screen according to the activated setting” amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
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));
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The current invention generates displays data on a display utilizing a) an electronic device comprising: a1) a display with a1a) a home screen, a3) memory storing one or more computer programs, and a4) one or more processors communicatively coupled to the display, the at least one sensor and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions and d) a communication circuit, thus these computing devices are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the a2) at least one sensor in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives sensor data, and transmits the data to a device over a network, for example the Internet.
Furthermore, the b) plurality of applications stored in the memory including b1) a first application and b2) a second application generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to applications, because limiting application of the abstract idea to computer applications is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 6) “after the setting for displaying the first object on the home screen is activated, receive, while the display is in an inactive state, an input to switch the display from the inactive state to an active state” and 7) “based on the input to switch the display from the inactive state to the active state while the display is in the inactive state, display, via the display, the first object for executing the first application on the home screen according to the activated setting”, e.g. see paragraph [0004] of U.S. 2018/0025324 to Anjo where there is display of a message upon activation and activation of a calendar program upon selection of the message (7)), paragraph [0142] of U.S. 2023/0082046 to Isoda et al. where displaying push notifications on a lock screen is well-known (6)), paragraph [0271] of U.S. 2015/0350143 to Yang et al. where there is activation of push notifications to the inactive display (6)), and paragraph [0143] of U.S. 2018/0361252 to Tsuda et al. where there is activation of an application using in response to tapping a push notification (7)). The prior art of record above indicates that 6) and 7) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, a general linking to a particular technological field, or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1 and 21-39 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
No Art Rejections
Claims 1 and 21-39 have not been given art rejections based on the combination of references which could be used to reject these claims being unreasonable.
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
