CTNF 18/724,662 CTNF 83736 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of: a state estimation device comprising: at least one memory storing a computer program; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program to: acquire position information of a plurality of subjects and behavior information that is information relating to behaviors measured with respect to the subjects ; estimate an activity state of each of the subjects based on the behavior information [i.e., analyzing data] ; and output subject information that is information showing the position information and the activity state for each of the subjects [i.e., outputting a result based on the data analysis] . These limitations ( bolded and italicized ), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of : acquire position information of a plurality of subjects and behavior information that is information relating to behaviors measured with respect to the subjects , however this amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); a computer (in the preamble), which is also recited at a high level of generality, and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. The same rejection is applicable for independent claims 13 and 14. The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” ( buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350. ) Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se ), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to dependent claims 2 – 12 : Claim 2 recites additional data gathering and mental analysis of data; Claims 3-5 recite outputting a result of mental analysis Claim 6 recites additional mental steps; Claims 7-9 recite additional data gathering and mental analysis of data; Claim 10 recites additional mental analysis of data; Claim 11 recites outputting a result of mental analysis; Claim 12 recites additional mental processes. Step 2B : The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] . Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0016]-[0023], [0027], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hahm et al (KR 102243903 B1) . Regarding claim 1, Hahm et al discloses a state estimation device comprising: at least one memory storing a computer program (page 3 [description of embodiments] fourth paragraph, fig. 1 refers wireless communication unit includes memory) ; and at least one processor (page 3 [description of embodiments] fourth paragraph, fig. 1 refers wireless communication unit includes control unit) configured to execute the computer program to acquire position information of a plurality of subjects and behavior information that is information relating to behaviors measured with respect to the subjects (see at least abstract discloses obtaining location data and voice data of plurality of firefighters; wherein firefighters corresponds subjects) ; estimate an activity state of each of the subjects based on the behavior information (see at least abstract discloses control unit determines state of each firefighters; further page 2 [technical field] determines status of firefighters based acquired data) ; and output subject information that is information showing the position information and the activity state for each of the subjects (see at least abstract discloses displaying state of each firefighters on the map; further page 2 [technical field]) . Regarding claim 2, Hahm et al discloses the behavior information includes at least one of motion data and voice data of the subject (see at least abstract discloses voice data) , and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to estimate the activity state of each of the subjects from at least one of the motion data and the voice data (see at least abstract discloses control unit determines state of each firefighters; further page 2 [technical field] determines status of firefighters based acquired data) . Regarding claim 3, Hahm et al discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to output, as the subject information, information in which the position information and the activity state are shown on a map in association with each other (see at least abstract discloses displaying state of each firefighters on the map; further page 2 [technical field]) . Regarding claim 4, Hahm et al discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to display information of different modes depending on the activity state at a position of the subject shown on the map (see at least page 11 [last paragraph]) . Regarding claim 12, Hahm et al discloses the subject is at least one of a police officer, a fire brigade, and an ambulance team (see at least abstract discloses plurality of firefighters) . Regarding claim 13, Hahm et al discloses a state estimation method comprising: acquiring position information of a plurality of subjects and behavior information that is information relating to behaviors measured with respect to the subjects (see at least abstract discloses obtaining location data and voice data of plurality of firefighters; wherein firefighters corresponds subjects) ; estimating an activity state of each of the subjects based on the behavior information (see at least abstract discloses control unit determines state of each firefighters; further page 2 [technical field] determines status of firefighters based acquired data) ; and outputting subject information that is information showing the position information and the activity state for each of the subjects (see at least abstract discloses displaying state of each firefighters on the map; further page 2 [technical field]) . Regarding claim 14, Hahm et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (page 3 [description of embodiments] fourth paragraph, fig. 1 refers wireless communication unit includes memory) having stored therein a program that causes a computer to execute: a process of acquiring position information of a plurality of subjects and behavior information that is information relating to behaviors measured with respect to the subjects (see at least abstract discloses obtaining location data and voice data of plurality of firefighters; wherein firefighters corresponds subjects) ; a process of estimating an activity state of each of the subjects based on the behavior information (see at least abstract discloses control unit determines state of each firefighters; further page 2 [technical field] determines status of firefighters based acquired data) ; and a process of outputting subject information that is information showing the position information and the activity state for each of the subjects (see at least abstract discloses displaying state of each firefighters on the map; further page 2 [technical field]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21 AIA Claim s 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hahm et al (KR 102243903 B1) in view of Pfeffer (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0284348) . Regarding claim 5, Hahm et al specifically does not disclose the processor is configured to execute the computer program to acquire attribute information that is information showing an attribute including a gender of the subject, and output the subject information in which the position information, the activity state, and the attribute information are shown for each of the subjects. However, Pfeffer from the same or similar fields of endeavor the processor is configured to execute the computer program to acquire attribute information that is information showing an attribute including a gender of the subject, and output the subject information in which the position information, the activity state, and the attribute information are shown for each of the subjects (see at least paragraph 43 and 50 of Pfeffer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Pfeffer into the system of Hahm et al for purpose of responding to incidents; wherein a responder is identified based incident effectiveness. Regarding claim 6, Pfeffer discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to predict free time of the subject, and the subject information including information indicating the free time for each of the subjects is output (see at least paragraph 66 of Pfeffer) . Same motivation as claim 5. Regarding claim 7, Pfeffer discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to notify, of an instruction, the subject that is positioned in a predetermined range and has the activity state of a free state (see at least paragraph 66 of Pfeffer) . Same motivation as claim 5. Regarding claim 10, Pfeffer discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to estimate the activity state of the subject positioned in a predetermined range in a case where a notification is made (see at least paragraph 66 of Pfeffer) . Same motivation as claim 5. Regarding claim 11, Pfeffer discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to display information of different modes depending on the attribute information of the subject at the position of the subject shown on the map (see at least paragraph 66 of Pfeffer) . Same motivation as claim 5 . 07-21 AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hahm et al (KR 102243903 B1) in view of Pfeffer (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0284348) and further in view of Hiromitsu (JP 2003274018) . Regarding claim 8, Hahm et al and Pfeffer specifically do not disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to receive a dummy instruction request from the subject, and notify, of a dummy instruction, the subject that has made the dummy instruction request. However, Hiromitsu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the processor is configured to execute the computer program to receive a dummy instruction request from the subject, and notify, of a dummy instruction, the subject that has made the dummy instruction request (see at least abstract of Hiromitsu (JP 2003274018)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Hiromitsu into the system of Hahm et al and Pfeffer for purpose of dummy notification; communicating with telephone and making notification to telephone. Regarding claim 9, Pfeffer discloses the processor is configured to execute the computer program to receive an input including information indicating whether the activity state is a busy state, and estimate the information included in the input as the activity state of the subject that has made the input (see at least paragraph 66 of Pfeffer) . Same motivation as claim 8 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention: Bongberg et al (US Pat. No. 12,430,998) directed toward notifying potential nearby responders of emergency medical incidents. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm. 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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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. /LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 5 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 6 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 7 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 8 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 9 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 10 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/724,662 Page 11 Art Unit: 2642
Prosecution Insights