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 .
Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 1-8 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 1-8 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 1-5 are drawn to an apparatus for data processing which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 6-7 are drawn to a method for data processing which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable media, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Claim 1 (Group I) recites a data processing apparatus comprising:
analyze child-care data stored in a storage unit to determine an estimated sleep duration of a caregiver according to a location of the caregiver within a geographic region not changing over a threshold amount of time;
determine, based on the estimated sleep duration of the caregiver, whether or not an examination is to be conducted to determine whether the caregiver suffers from a mental disease or is at risk of the mental disease;
in response to determining that the examination is to be conducted, generate a notification for requesting the caregiver answer one or more questions;
acquire, via a user interface (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it), an answer to the one or more examination questions from the caregiver in response to the notification; and
determine, using the acquired answers, whether the caregiver suffers from the mental disease or is at risk of the mental disease.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 6 and Claim 8 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1 (Group I), they are just directed at different statutory categories.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-8 include other limitations, for example Claims 2 and 7 recite wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a sleeping state of the caregiver based on the result of analyzing the child-care data; and determine whether or not the examination has to be conducted, based on the determined sleeping state, Claim 3 recites wherein the child-care data comprises at least one type of data among data indicating timings of feeding an infant by the caregiver, sleeping of the infant, and excretion of the infant, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform analysis on the data indicating the timings, determine a sleep time of the caregiver based on a result of the analysis, and determine whether or not the examination has to be conducted, based on the determined sleep time, Claim 4 recites further comprising a storage unit, and wherein the storage unit further configured to store position data of the caregiver, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform analysis on the child-care data and the position data and determines whether or not the examination has to be conducted, based on a result of the analysis, Claim 5 recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to notify at least one of the caregiver and a person who can provide support regarding the disease of the caregiver, in response to determining that the caregiver suffers from a disease or is at risk of disease, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 6, and 8.
Furthermore, Claims 1-8 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a data processing apparatus, processor, storage units, non-transitory computer readable media, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0012-0013], [0030] and [0032] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0012-0013], [0030] and [0032] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. data processing apparatus, storage units) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Examiner notes that the claims do not include any limitations that recite extra-solution activity.
Dependent Claims 2-7 include other limitations, but these limitations merely further limit the abstract idea and do not contain any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-8 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments have resulted in the claims no longer being interpreted under 112f.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the claims are eligible.
The claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot as they are directed towards the amendments which have resulted in the withdrawal of the previous prior art rejection.
The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious “analyz[ing] child-care data stored in a storage unit to determine an estimated sleep duration of a caregiver according to a location of the caregiver within a geographic region not changing over a threshold amount of time; determin[ing] , based on the estimated sleep duration of the caregiver, whether or not an examination is to be conducted to determine whether on whether or not the caregiver suffers from a mental disease or is at risk of the mental disease, based on a result of the analysis; a notification unit, including one or more processors, configured to in response to determining that the examination is to be conducted, generate a notification…” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. The closest prior art of record includes Hattori (WO 2019/234883 A1), Okawa (JP 201861769 A) and Mehra (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0261237 A1).
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights