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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn (Remarks, pg. 8-10).
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/24/2026, concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, pg. 5-6).
Applicant states the following: “Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite in part "obtaining data related to the user from a nearby found device of the user." Other instances of nearby are similarly amended. Applicant notes the Specification indicates that a user interface can provide "found nearby devices of the user as a search result. Herein, the nearby devices of the user may include devices that are connectable in a wired/wireless manner." Specification, [0048]. That is, the Specification discusses searching for and finding a nearby device. Accordingly, the amended claims shows a range for the device (e.g., devices that are close enough to be discoverable/found). Therefore the claims are definite.”
It is respectfully submitted that clarifying that the devices need to be connected in a wired/wireless manner in the claim would likely aid in overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, as claimed, a nearby found device does not incorporate such a limitation, and is considered indefinite.
Applicant's arguments, filed 6/24/2026, concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, pg. 6-8).
Applicant states the following: “However, the present claims recite steps with specificity such that they cannot be performed in the human mind. As mentioned above, the amended claims recite "the data related to the user includes distribution of the user's movements based on GPS," which a human mind is incapable of doing (e.g., a human can't use a GPS satellite to pinpoint the location of the user). Additionally, behavior characteristic information of the device cannot be performed in the human mind. That is, a human mind is incapable of determining "behavior characteristic data associated with a nearby found device, including how often a battery is charged, the number of times that a particular application is executed, how long the particular application is executed, the number of times that a web page is visited, and the number of times that movement from the web page to another web page takes place." Humans are not able to determine, from device data, how often a battery is charged, or how long an application is executed, number of times a page is accessed and corresponding movement from that webpage.”
It is respectfully submitted that the claim, as currently written, does not specify the collection of that data from the device. The claim can currently be reasonably interpreted as a person using the device to access a spreadsheet with the various data points claimed. Even assuming that the data was obtained by the device, the claim would not be allowable. GPS, web pages, applications, and batteries are recited at a high level and would be considered generic computing/extra solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “nearby found” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearby found” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close a device needs to be to the user to satisfy this limitation, and thus the claim does not have clear metes and bounds.
The term “user’s tone is high or low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “user’s tone is high or low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how high or low the user’s tone would need to be to satisfy this limitation, and thus the claim does not have clear metes and bounds.
Claim 1 recites the following: “wherein the data related to the user includes distribution of the user's movements based on GPS, information of the user's location, whether the user talks a lot with others around the user, how often the user makes calls or uses messengers, or whether the user's voice tone is high or low when making calls, and behavior characteristic data associated with a nearby found device, including how often a battery is charged, the number of times that a particular application is executed, how long the particular application is executed, the number of times that a web page is visited, and the number of times that movement from the web page to another web page takes place.” The language of the claim is unclear, as the highlighted “or” can be read such that the claim recites a Markush list (GPS, location information, talking frequency, call and message frequency, or tone inflection), or a requirement of either how often the user makes calls or uses messengers, or whether the user's voice tone is high or low when making calls. For the purposes of examination and based on the Remarks, it is assumed that the latter is intended.
Concerning claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1.
Concerning claims 2-7, said claims are rejected due to their dependency from rejected claim 1.
Concerning claims 9-14, said claims are rejected due to their dependency from rejected claim 8.
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.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-14 are drawn to statutory categories of invention of process and/or machine.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mathematical concepts and/or mental process (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of predicting and analyzing a user’s personality, the method performed by a user personality prediction system and comprising:
obtaining data related to the user from a nearby found device of the user, the data related to the user being collected and obtained for a particular period of time set by the user;
predicting the user's personality using a machine learning model pre-trained on the basis of the data related to the user; and
analyzing the predicted personality of the user to obtain analysis data,
wherein the data related to the user includes distribution of the user's movements based on GPS, information of the user's location, whether the user talks a lot with others around the user, how often the user makes calls or uses messengers, or whether the user's voice tone is high or low when making calls, and behavior characteristic data associated with a nearby found device, including how often a battery is charged, the number of times that a particular application is executed, how long the particular application is executed, the number of times that a web page is visited, and the number of times that movement from the web page to another web page takes place.
As indicated above, the “obtaining”, “predicting”, and “analyzing” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be mathematical concepts and/or mental process. For example, a teacher could merely gather information from a student through questions and answers in the context of a personality assessment, and use the answers to score, characterize, and analyze the personality of their student. In other words, the underlined could have been done by a teacher using mental processes and mathematical concepts to characterize the personality of their student using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing human activity through the establishment of instructions, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts and/or mental process” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, machine learning is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the personality test is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified 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 and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 is rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “a processor” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claim 8 fails to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claim 8 is also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are dependent on claims 1 and 8 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mental processes and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights