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 .
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 29 September 2025. Applicant’s amendment on 29 September 2025 amended Claims 1, 8-11, and 22-27. Currently Claims 1-27 are pending and have been examined. The Examiner notes that the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that “Given the overinclusion of various inventions under an abstract idea, the USPTO recently issued a reminder memorandum to the examining corp., titled "reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 USC 101... in the 101 reminder, the deputy commissioner for patents reminder the examiner's that they "should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception from claims... the 101 reminder also instructed the examiners that the rejection under 101 should only be made when it is more than 50% likely the claim is ineligible under 101, and that such rejections should not be applied when the likelihood of patent ineligibility is 50% or less. the mental process grouping is not without limits and specifically instructs the examiner's not to expand the mental process grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind... cannot reasonably fall within the mental process grouping to qualify as an abstract idea. Make the response to argument is as concise and legally compliant as possible as to why the claims can reasonably fall within the mental process grouping, while maintaining all necessary response information in paragraph form that presents the information clearly so that one of ordinary skill in the art would still understand the response to the argument, but also framed in such a way to teach the attorney why it does not overcome the 101 rejection”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments the Examiner notes that the argument was carefully considered, however, Applicant's arguments regarding the 101 reminder memorandum and the scope of the mental process grouping, but respectfully maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the Examiner acknowledges the guidance to exercise care in distinguishing claims that recite exceptions from those that do not, the instant claims clearly fall within the mental process grouping and meet the threshold for rejection well above the 50% likelihood standard.
The claimed steps of acquiring use information about appliance usage, collecting household job data based on that information, acquiring user coefficient information, and calculating household job points using mathematical operations are all activities that can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. A person could observe and mentally note when household members use appliances (acquiring use information), organize this information into a mental or written record attributing tasks to specific users (collecting household job data), recall or reference predetermined coefficient values for each user (acquiring user coefficient information), and perform the mathematical calculation of multiplying or otherwise combining the data with coefficients to arrive at point values (calculating household job points). These are fundamental mental processes involving observation, data organization, and mathematical calculation—not activities that require or are inherently tied to computer technology.
The 101-reminder memorandum's caution against overexpansion of the mental process grouping applies to claim limitations that cannot practically be performed mentally, such as those requiring specific technological tools, high-speed processing beyond human capability, or physical transformation of matter. The instant claims recite no such limitations. The mere recitation of an "information processing device" performing these steps does not remove them from the mental process grouping, as this represents only a generic computer implementation of otherwise abstract mental activities. The Court in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., explicitly held that methods that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper remain abstract even when implemented on a computer. Even with the amendment to the claims that further identify which information is gathered such as the appliance or facility, time and date of operation, and identification of the user this is merely viewed as the collection of additional information that must be analyzed, but could still be performed with a pen and paper.
Regarding the 50% likelihood standard, the Examiner has high confidence—well exceeding 50%—that these claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The claims recite conventional data gathering, organization, and mathematical calculation steps without any technical innovation or improvement to computer functionality. Under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, such claims are paradigmatic examples of abstract ideas that have been merely implemented on generic computer equipment. The Examiner's analysis is consistent with established Federal Circuit precedent, including Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A, which found patent-ineligible claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results, and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, which held claims directed to mathematical calculations and data manipulation to be abstract.
The rejection is maintained because Applicant has not identified any claim limitation that cannot practically be performed through human mental activity or basic mathematical calculation, and the while the claim was identified for the sake of rejection as merely a mental process the claims as a whole are viewed to be directed to the abstract idea of organizing and mathematically manipulating data to generate reward points—a fundamental economic practice and mental process that falls squarely within established judicial precedent for patent ineligibility. The rejection is therefore maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 29 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Additionally Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) 1-27 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-27 is/are directed to the abstract idea of acquiring information and determining a household point calculation. 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 than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1-27) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the January 2019 §101 Examination Guidelines), claim(s) (1-10 and 11-23) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (24 and 25) is/ are directed to an information processing device, and claims(s) (26 and 27) is/are directed to a computer readable medium and therefore the claims recites a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 11, 24, 25, 26, and 27 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of calculating household job points which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processing device, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processing device language, the claim encompasses the collecting information regarding a user performing an activity and calculating a household job point from a pre-collected set of data regarding the user. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Note to the Applicant per the 2019 October Guidance: The 2019 PEG sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In sum, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer additionally the data acquiring and collecting steps required to use the calculating do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the calculating step. The processor in the step is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (calculating the household job point). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): collecting household job data and acquiring user coefficient information performs the calculating step. The acquiring and collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of acquiring and collecting data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processing device that performs the calculating step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the calculating step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing device).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead 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, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
Note to the Applicant from the October 2019 Guidance: Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-27 recite(s) acquiring use information, collecting household job data, and calculating household job point which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for acquiring, collecting, and calculating which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (acquiring information and determining a household point calculation) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to calculate the household job point). Using a computer to acquiring, collecting, and calculating resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device is not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The acquiring information and determining a household point calculation would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide to evaluate a household job point. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to analyze user activity data:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 7, 10, and 21 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 5, 9, 19, and 23 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Neumann which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-18, 20, and 22 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on gathered and analyzed information about the household activity data. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of activity tracking and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the claim language that states collecting and acquiring, they are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity and the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art Neumann provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (U.S. Patent 12,073,296 B2) in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0156074 A1) (hereafter Yamada).
Referring to Claim 1, Neumann teaches a household job point calculation method, said method comprising
an information processing device (see; col. 3, line (38) – col. 4, line (4) of multiple computing devices used to process information).
acquiring use information indicating a use situation of an appliance or a facility (see; Abstract of Neumann teaches acquiring use information regarding devices that monitor activities performed by users).
acquiring user coefficient information indicating a user coefficient for each of the users (see; col. 9, line (54) – col. 10, line (19) of Neumann teaches collecting user data, col. 10, lines (43-64) where the information which includes a coefficient that provides specifics of a user doing a particular job).
calculating, on the basis of the household job data and the user coefficient information, a household job point that is commensurate with a household job amount of each of the users (see; col. 10, lines (20-64) of Neumann teaches the calculating of an activity performance based on col. 9, line (54) – col. 10, line (19) collected user data including coefficient data with respect to the task performed).
Neumann does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Yamada teaches wherein the use information includes identification information identifying the appliance or the facility, operation date and time information indicating the date and time when the appliance or the facility was operated, and identification information identifying a user who operated the appliance or the facility, recorded in association with each other (see; par. [0196] and [0229] of Yamada teaches information regarding the name of the home appliance, it will record the time and date of operation and it will also look at the specific identified user and record information regarding that user), and
collecting household job data of each of a plurality of users on the basis of the use information and management information defining a correspondence between a kind of the appliance or the facility and a content of a household job (see; par. [0196] of Yamada teaches collecting information with respect to the home appliance and with respect to a specific user that used the appliance).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann fails to disclose wherein the use information includes identification information identifying the appliance or the facility, operation date and time information indicating the date and time when the appliance or the facility was operated, and identification information identifying a user who operated the appliance or the facility, recorded in association with each other and collecting household job data of each of a plurality of users on the basis of the use information and management information defining a correspondence between a kind of the appliance or the facility and a content of a household job.
Yamada discloses wherein the use information includes identification information identifying the appliance or the facility, operation date and time information indicating the date and time when the appliance or the facility was operated, and identification information identifying a user who operated the appliance or the facility, recorded in association with each other and collecting household job data of each of a plurality of users on the basis of the use information and management information defining a correspondence between a kind of the appliance or the facility and a content of a household job.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Neumann wherein the use information includes identification information identifying the appliance or the facility, operation date and time information indicating the date and time when the appliance or the facility was operated, and identification information identifying a user who operated the appliance or the facility, recorded in association with each other and collecting household job data of each of a plurality of users on the basis of the use information and management information defining a correspondence between a kind of the appliance or the facility and a content of a household job as taught by Yamada since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Neumann and Yamada teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to determine user interactions with appliances and the activities performed by a user they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view off Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of:
setting the user coefficient for each of the users on the basis of the household job data of the user in a predetermined period (see; col. 31, line (57) – col. 32, line (17) of Neumann teaches the coefficients are continuously derived by weights and connections).
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 2 above, while Neumann in view off Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of:
in the setting of the user coefficient, a larger user coefficient is set for a user having a larger household job amount in the predetermined period (see; col. 32, line (59) – col. 33, line (20) of Neumann teaches a larger coefficient is assigned as a penalty, col. 10, lines (49-64) where coefficients are used to calculate specifics of performing certain activities over a time frame).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view off Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of,
changing the user coefficient in accordance with a timeframe in which the household job is executed (see; col. 14, line (64) – col. 15, line (23) of Neumann teaches making changes to a user’s classification at different points in time, col. 10, lines (1-58) and make modifications to coefficient associated with activities performed).
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view off Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann discloses a method having the limitations of,
acquiring evaluation coefficient information indicating an evaluation coefficient in connection with an evaluation of the household job executed by each of the users (see; col. 10, lines (1-58) of Neumann teaches collecting coefficient information including household chore data for multiple users).
in the calculating of the household job point, the household job point is calculated on the basis of the household job data, the user coefficient information, and the evaluation coefficient information (see; col. 10, lines (1-58) of Neumann teaches collecting activity data and evaluating the coefficient that gives specific information about the activities).
Referring to Claim 24, Neumann in view off Yamada discloses an information processing device. Claim 24 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 24 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
An acquisition part and a processing part (see; col. 2, line (55) – col. 3, line (8) of Neumann teaches the collection of activity data of human subjects using a processor).
Referring to Claim 26, Neumann in view off Yamada discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program causing an information processing device to serve as an acquisition part and a processing part. Claim 26 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 26 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-7, 9, 11-23, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (U.S. Patent 12,073,296 B2) in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0156074 A1) (hereafter Yamada) in further view of Salehian et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0100704 A1) (hereafter Salehian).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 2 above, while Neumann in view of Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Salehian teaches the setting of the user coefficient, a larger user coefficient is set for a user having a smaller household job amount in the predetermined period (see; par. [0005]-[0006] of Salehian teaches adjusting the coefficient set for the user data and par. [0087] physiological characteristics while being monitored (i.e. period)).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Salehian teaches gait coaching in fitness activities optimizing the activity for a user-based monitoring, comparison and feedback and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann and Yamada which generating physical activity sets for a human subject as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann and Yamada discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann and Yamada fails to disclose the setting of the user coefficient, a larger user coefficient is set for a user having a smaller household job amount in the predetermined period.
Salehian discloses the setting of the user coefficient, a larger user coefficient is set for a user having a smaller household job amount in the predetermined period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Neumann and Yamada the setting of the user coefficient, a larger user coefficient is set for a user having a smaller household job amount in the predetermined period as taught by Salehian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Neumann, Yamada and Salehian teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to determine a point system for activities performed by a user they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view of Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Salehian teaches acquiring change information indicating a change in the user coefficient from a specific user of the users (see; par. [0004]-[0005] of Salehian teaches collecting change information regarding the actions performed by a user including determining coefficients for specifics about the activities performed by the user), and
changing the user coefficient on the basis of the change information (see; par. [0004][-[0006] of Salehian teaches changing the coefficient over time taking into account user activity real time collected data).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Salehian teaches gait coaching in fitness activities optimizing the activity for a user-based monitoring, comparison and feedback and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann and Yamada which generating physical activity sets for a human subject as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann and Yamada discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann and Yamada fails to disclose acquiring change information indicating a change in the user coefficient from a specific user of the users and changing the user coefficient on the basis of the change information.
Salehian discloses acquiring change information indicating a change in the user coefficient from a specific user of the users and changing the user coefficient on the basis of the change information.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Neumann and Yamada acquiring change information indicating a change in the user coefficient from a specific user of the users and changing the user coefficient on the basis of the change information as taught by Salehian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Neumann, Yamada and Salehian teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to determine a point system for activities performed by a user they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 5 above, while Neumann in view of Yamada in further view of Salehian teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of,
setting the specific user on the basis of the household job data of the users in a predetermined period (see; col. 10, lines (1-64) of Neumann teaches a specific user performing an activity at a specific intensity (force over time is work exerted) including household chores performed by a user).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view of Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of,
calculating a cumulative household job amount of each of the users (see; col. 18, line (52) – col. 19, line (26) of Neumann teaches calculating a group of activities for a group of people performing activities, col. 10, lines (1-64) including household chores).
Neumann does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Salehian teaches changing the user coefficient of the user on the basis of the cumulative household job amount of the user (see; par. [0004]-[0006] of Salehian teaches changing the coefficient over time taking into account user activity real time collected data).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Salehian teaches gait coaching in fitness activities optimizing the activity for a user-based monitoring, comparison and feedback and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann and Yamada which generating physical activity sets for a human subject as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann and Yamada discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann and Yamada fails to disclose changing the user coefficient of the user on the basis of the cumulative household job amount of the user.
Salehian discloses changing the user coefficient of the user on the basis of the cumulative household job amount of the user.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Neumann and Yamada changing the user coefficient of the user on the basis of the cumulative household job amount of the user as taught by Salehian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Neumann, Yamada and Salehian teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to determine a point system for activities performed by a user they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Neumann in view of Yamada teaches the method above, Neumann further discloses a method having the limitations of,
the use information includes first use information about use of the appliance or the facility accompanied by execution of the household job, and second use information about use of the appliance or the facility unaccompanied by the execution of the household job (see; col. 10, lines (1-58) of Neumann teaches multiple determinations of tasks performed in the house as well as other activities).
Neumann in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose the following limitation however,
Salehian teaches in the collecting of the household job data, the household job data is collected on the basis of the first use information (see; par. [0038] and par. [0043] of Salehian teaches an example of the collection of activity data where there is an initial collection of information).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Salehian teaches gait coaching in fitness activities optimizing the activity for a user-based monitoring, comparison and feedback and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann and Yamada which generating physical activity sets for a human subject as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann and Yamada discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann and Yamada fails to disclose in the collecting of the household job data, the household job data is collected on the basis of the first use information.
Salehian discloses in the collecting of the household job data, the household job data is collected on the basis of the first use information.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Neumann and Yamada in the collecting of the household job data, the household job data is collected on the basis of the first use information as taught by Salehian since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Neumann, Yamada and Salehian teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to determine a point system for activities performed by a user they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 11, Neumann in view of Yamada teaches a household job point calculation method. Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1, except for the following noted exception.
Salehian teaches acquiring attribute coefficient information indicating an attribute coefficient in connection with an attribute of the user (see; par. [0079] of Salehian teaches determining coefficients related to the activity performed by the user).
The Examiner notes that Neumann teaches similar to the instant application teaches generating physical activity sets for a human subject. Specifically, Neumann discloses the detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Yamada teaches information sharing that provides a graphical user interface to share information regarding appliances, the location and the user and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann which activity information a human subject and interaction of an appliance as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Salehian teaches gait coaching in fitness activities optimizing the activity for a user-based monitoring, comparison and feedback and as it is comparable in certain respects to Neumann and Yamada which generating physical activity sets for a human subject as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Neumann and Yamada discloses a detecting a signal from wearable devices to determine an activity by classifying the activity profile with corresponding activity profile data for multiple subjects. However, Neumann and Yamada fails to disclose acquiring attribute coefficient information indicating an attribute coefficient in connection with an attribute of the user.
Salehian discloses