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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06 August 2025, wherein:
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are amended.
Claims 6-11, 14, and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06 August 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, the copy that was provided for the foreign patent document is incomplete (i.e., it is missing many pages of the foreign patent document).
The information disclosure statement filed 06 August 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the IDS states that, regarding the cited foreign reference, the English abstract and pg. 2 of the instant specification are relevant. Pg. 2 of the instant specification is not a portion of the foreign reference and thus should not be cited in the “Pages, Columns Lines where Relevant Passages or Relevant Figures Appear” column of the citation in the IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are inconsistently formatted, failing to follow conventional practice. In particular, many limitations end with commas when they should end with semi-colons and indenting of limitations and sub-limitations are inconsistent decreasing clarity regarding which limitations are sub-limitations of preceding limitations and which are not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-5, 19, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what constitutes an “intensity of the object behavior suitable for the subject”. Para. 115 provides an incomplete equation for estimating a behavior level indicating a strength of the object behavior suitable for the subject. Regardless, a behavior level indicating a strength of the object behavior suitable for the subject does not describe what a strength of the object behavior suitable for the subject actually is, let alone the claimed “intensity of the object behavior”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 4 and 5 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, it is unclear how estimating the psychological state data of the subject using the acquired behavior data includes “calculating a frequency of access to the service function on the user terminal by the subject during a first period using the service operation data, and estimating the motivation data using the calculated frequency, the motivation data being larger as the calculated frequency data is larger, AND calculating a number of days of implementation of the object behavior on the user terminal by the subject during the first period using the behavior implementation data” as well as their subsequent sub-limitations when each claim includes embodiments wherein only “service operation data” is acquired or only “behavior implementation data” is acquired. (Capitalized and bolded for emphasis). In other words, it is unclear how both calculating operations, each using a different data set, can be performed when only one data set is acquired. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “estimate, as psychological state data of a subject, at least one of motivation data, behavior change stage data, and self-efficacy data that are related to object behavior of the subject, on the basis of behavior data of the subject along time series” and “the behavior data including service operation data, which is acquired by operation on the user terminal and includes data of the subject operating a service function on the user terminal, the service function including at least one of an autonomy function, a competency function, a relatedness function, a message viewing function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function that are related to the object behavior of the subject, and (claims 19 and 20: or) behavior implementation data, which indicates when and/or how much the subject implements the object behavior on the user terminal” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example at least para. 41, 42, and 44-47. For instance, para. 41 and 42 recite that a controller includes an estimation unit and an intervention unit, but that the controller “is achieved by a program”. In other words, the controller is purely software, indicating that the estimation unit is also software. Yet, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-5, 12, 13, and 16-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “estimate the psychological state data of the subject using the acquired behavior data, including calculating a frequency of access to the service function on the user terminal by the subject during a first period using the service operation data” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least para. 46, 50-58, 64-66, 70, and 71 which merely recite similar language as the claims in results-based language without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. For instance, para. 66 defines service functions as “autonomy function, competence function, relatedness function, message viewing function, message acceptability acquisition function, and behavior registration function”. However, para. 51-57 provide insufficient descriptions for each of these functions. At best, they are merely recited in results-based language without any meaningful descriptions of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for performing these functions. For instance, para. 51 discusses autonomy function and recites, as an example, that “the autonomy function may be a function of detecting a user’s daily stair use state (for example, the fact that the user went up and down the stairs for three floors yesterday and for two floors the day before yesterday) and presenting the detected stair use state to the user” without any description for how the user’s daily stair use state is detected, let alone any description of “a function of detecting a user’s daily stair use state” and what an “autonomy function” actually is. A “function of detecting the behavior selected by a user and presenting the details of the behavior selected by the user to the user” provides no information on how the behavior selected by a user is detected nor how the details of the behavior are presented, let alone what a function of this detecting and presenting is. The same issues arise for a competence function, a relatedness function, a message viewing function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-5, 12, 13, and 16-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “calculating a number of days of implementation of the object behavior on the user terminal by the subject during the first period using the behavior implementation data” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least para. 46, 64, 65, 67-70, and 72 which merely recite similar language as the claims in results-based language without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. For instance, para. 72 defines behavior implementation frequency data as “data indicating the frequency of implementation of stair walking, which is calculated by the behavior analysis part 110 on the basis of the behavior implementation data among the terminal response data.” Here, para. 72 examples, in results-based language, that the frequency of implementation of stair walking “is a result of counting the days when the user implemented stair walking of a predetermined amount or more during the current period.” However, the disclosure is not only silent regarding any other embodiments besides stair walking, it does not provide any meaningful description for determining when the user implemented stair walking of a predetermined amount or more during the current period. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-5, 12-13, and 16-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13, and 15-20, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “estimating the motivation data using the calculated frequency, the motivation data being larger as the calculated frequency data is larger, and… estimating the self-efficacy data using the calculated number of days, including making correction to decrease the self-efficacy data in a case where the number of days of implementation of the object behavior is smaller than a predetermined first value, and estimating the behavior change stage data using the calculated number of days, including determining whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than a first number of days of implementation, determining, m a case where the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than the first number of days of implementation, whether the motivation data is smaller than a first threshold, using a value indicating a precontemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is smaller than the first threshold, and using a value indicating a contemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is equal to or larger than the first threshold” in claims 1, 19, and 20, “determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the first number of days of implementation and smaller than a second number of days of implementation on the basis of the calculated frequency data, and regard a value indicating a preparation period as the behavior change stage data in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the first number of days of implementation and smaller than the second number of days of implementation” in claim 12, “determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the second number of days of implementation on the basis of the behavior implementation frequency data, determines, in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than a second number of days of implementation on the basis of the calculated frequency data, determine, in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the second number of days of implementation, whether a continued period after an action period of the object behavior by the subject is smaller than a second threshold, regard a value indicating an action period as the behavior change stage data in a case where it is determined that the continued period after the action period is smaller than the second threshold, and regard a value indicating a maintenance period as the behavior change stage data in a case where it is determined that the continued period after the action period is equal to or larger than the second threshold” in claim 13, “determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than a first number of days of implementation on the basis of the calculated frequency data, and estimate, in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than the first number of days of implementation, self-efficacy data of the first period on the basis of a tendency of increase or decrease of motivation data from a second period that is a period before the first period to the first period and the self-efficacy data of the second period” in claim 16, “determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than a first number of days of implementation and smaller than a second number of days of implementation on the basis of the calculated frequency data, and estimate, in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the first number of days of implementation and smaller than the second number of days of implementation, self-efficacy data of the first period on the basis of a tendency of increase or decrease of at least one of motivation data and calculated frequency data from a second period that is a period before the first period to the first period and the self-efficacy data of the second period” in claim 17, and “determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than a second number of days of implementation on the basis of the calculated frequency data, and estimate, in a case where it is determined that the number of days of implementation during the first period is equal to or larger than the second number of days of implementation, self-efficacy data of the first period on the basis of a tendency of increase or decrease of the calculated frequency data from a second period that is a period before the first period to the first period and the self-efficacy data of the second period” in claim 18 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Fig. 5 illustrates a psychological state estimation part 120 as a black box element within the black box element, estimation unit 100. Additionally, para. 41 and 42 recite that a controller includes an estimation unit and an intervention unit, but that the controller “is achieved by a program”. In other words, the controller is purely software indicating that the psychological state estimation part is also software. Furthermore, the disclosure provides only one embodiment for an object behavior (stair walking), but does not provide the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary for such an object behavior, let alone any other object behavior. See, for example, at least para. 47 and 74-106. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-5, 12, 13, and 16-18 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2-5, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “intervene in the object behavior of the subject by determining message data on the basis of the psychological state data and outputting the message data to the user terminal of the subject” in claim 2, “estimate a behavior level indicating an intensity of the object behavior suitable for the subject, on the basis of the self-efficacy data, and determines the message data corresponding to the behavior level” in claim 3, “estimate the behavior level on the basis of a past behavior level and a target behavior level that are input by the subject, past self-efficacy data, and the self-efficacy data estimated by the psychological state estimation system” in claim 4, and “the behavior level is estimated on the basis of the self-efficacy data after the correction” in claim 5 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example at least para. 41, 42, 48, and 107-127. For instance, para. 41 and 42 recite that a controller includes an estimation unit and an intervention unit, but that the controller “is achieved by a program”. In other words, the controller is purely software, indicating that the intervention unit is also software. Yet, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Similarly, para. 115 provides an incomplete equation to estimate a behavior level suitable for the user with the variables representing functions that include undisclosed equations. For instance, the disclosure is silent regarding how a past behavior level, a target behavior level, and preliminarily held past self-efficacy data are determined. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 3-5 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “make the correction for decreasing the self-efficacy data in a case where subject's message acceptability data regarding the message data output to the user terminal of the subject in the first period is smaller than a predetermined second value” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least para. 103 and 104 which merely recite similar language as the claim in results-based language without any meaningful description of the steps, calculations, or algorithms necessary to perform the claimed functionality. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and products which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 recites:
A psychological state estimation system configured to estimate, as psychological state data of a subject, at least one of motivation data, behavior change stage data, and self-efficacy data that are related to object behavior of the subject, on the basis of behavior data of the subject along time series, the psychological state estimation system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory storage medium including program instructions, execution of which by the processor causes the psychological state estimation system to:
acquire, from a user terminal of the subject, the behavior data of the subject, the behavior data including
service operation data, which is acquired by operation on the user terminal and includes data of the subject operating a service function on the user terminal, the service function including at least one of an autonomy function, a competence function, a relatedness function, a message viewing function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function that are related to the object behavior of the subject, and
behavior implementation data, which indicates when and/or how much the subject implements the object behavior on the user terminal; and
estimate the psychological state data of the subject using the acquired behavior data, including
calculating a frequency of access to the service function on the user terminal by the subject during a first period using the service operation data, and estimating the motivation data using the calculated frequency, the motivation data being larger as the calculated frequency data is larger, and
calculating a number of days of implementation of the object behavior on the user terminal by the subject during the first period using the behavior implementation data, and
estimating the self-efficacy data using the calculated number of days, including making correction to decrease the self-efficacy data in a case where the number of days of implementation of the object behavior is smaller than a predetermined first value, and
estimating the behavior change stage data using the calculated number of days, including
determining whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than a first number of days of implementation,
determining, in a case where the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than the first number of days of implementation, whether the motivation data is smaller than a first threshold,
using a value indicating a precontemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is smaller than the first threshold, and
using a value indicating a contemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is equal to or larger than the first threshold.
Independent claim 19 recites:
A psychological state estimation method, for estimating by a processor, as psychological state data of a subject, at least one of motivation data, behavior change stage data, and self-efficacy data that are related to object behavior of the subject, on the basis of behavior data of the subject along time series, the psychological state estimation method comprising:
acquiring, from a user terminal of the subject, the behavior data of the subject, the behavior data including at least one of
service operation data, which is acquired by operation on the user terminal and includes data of the subject operating a service function on the user terminal, the service function including at least one of an autonomy function, a competence function, a relatedness function, a message viewing function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function that are related to the object behavior of the subject, or
behavior implementation data, which indicates when and/or how much the subject implements the object behavior on the user terminal; and
estimating the psychological state data of the subject using the acquired behavior data, including
calculating a frequency of access to the service function on the user terminal by the subject during a first period using the service operation data, and estimating the motivation data using the calculated frequency, the motivation data being larger as the calculated frequency data is larger, and
calculating a number of days of implementation of the object behavior on the user terminal by the subject during the first period using the behavior implementation data, and
estimating the self-efficacy data using the calculated number of days, including making correction to decrease the self-efficacy data in a case where the number of days of implementation of the object behavior is smaller than a predetermined first value, and
estimating the behavior change stage data using the calculated number of days, including
determining whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than a first number of days of implementation,
determining, in a case where the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than the first number of days of implementation, whether the motivation data is smaller than a first threshold,
using a value indicating a precontemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is smaller than the first threshold, and
using a value indicating a contemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is equal to or larger than the first threshold.
Independent claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing program instructions that are executable by a processor to estimate, as psychological state data of a subject, at least one of motivation data, behavior change stage data, and self-efficacy data that are related to object behavior of the subject, on the basis of behavior data of the subject along time series, the program instructions comprising:
instructions to acquire, from a user terminal of the subject, the behavior data of the subject, the behavior data including at least one of
service operation data, which is acquired by operation on the user terminal and includes data of the subject operating a service function on the user terminal, the service function including at least one of an autonomy function, a competence function, a relatedness function, a message v1ewmg function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function that are related to the object behavior of the subject, or
behavior implementation data, which indicates when and/or how much the subject implements the object behavior on the user terminal; and
instructions to estimate the psychological state data of the subject using the acquired behavior data, including
instructions to calculate a frequency of access to the service function on the user terminal by the subject during a first period using the service operation data, and to estimate the motivation data using the calculated frequency, the motivation data being larger as the calculated frequency data is larger, and
instructions to calculate a number of days of implementation of the object behavior on the user terminal by the subject during the first period using the behavior implementation data, and
to estimate the self-efficacy data using the calculated number of days, including making correction to decrease the self-efficacy data in a case where the number of days of implementation of the object behavior is smaller than a predetermined first value, and
to estimate the behavior change stage data using the calculated number of days, including
to determine whether the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than a first number of days of implementation,
to determine, m a case where the number of days of implementation during the first period is smaller than the first number of days of implementation, whether the motivation data is smaller than a first threshold,
to use a value indicating a precontemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is smaller than the first threshold, and
to use a value indicating a contemplation period as the behavior change stage data when the motivation data is equal to or larger than the first threshold.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. These elements are also interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Even if humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited steps, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a psychological state estimation system comprising a processor and a non-transitory storage medium (claim 1), a processor (claims 19 and 20), a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 20), and a user terminal (claims 1, 19, and 20). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1 and 8 merely illustrate these elements as non-descript black boxes or stock images, while para. 40-58 and 136-155 merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using a software application to cause a computer to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims are silent regarding any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, the disclosure identifies that the claimed invention is wholly encompassed by the analysis of “the subject’s psychological progress related to the behavior change.” See, for example, at least para. 9 of the specification. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite elements, identified above, for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1 and 8 merely illustrate these elements as non-descript black boxes or stock images, while para. 40-58 and 136-155 merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is focused on a software application that merely causes a computer to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. Thus, the focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations. Furthermore, the steps are merely recited to be performed by, or using, the elements while the specification makes clear that the computerized system itself is ancillary to the claimed invention as identified above. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ram et al. (US 2014/0310013, hereinafter referred to as Ram).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Ram teaches a psychological state estimation system (claim 1), a psychological state estimation method (claim 19), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing program instructions that are executable by a processor (claim 20) configured to estimate, as psychological state data of a subject, at least one of motivation data, behavior change stage data, and self-efficacy data that are related to object behavior of the subject, on the basis of behavior data of the subject along time series (Ram, para. 63, “the smart coaching agent relies on artificial intelligence and user modeling to accurately assess individual abilities, knowledge, and motivation with respect to behavior-changing goals.”), the psychological state estimation system comprising:
a processor (Ram, Fig. 7, processor 702); and
a non-transitory storage medium including program instructions (Ram, Fig, 7, storage device 706; para. 122, “Storage device 706 stores a generic health/wellness platform application 708, as well as other applications, such as applications 710 and 712. During operation, generic health/wellness platform application 708 is loaded from storage device 706 into memory 704 and then executed by processor 702. While executing the program, processor 702 performs the aforementioned functions.” Para. 123, “The data structures and code described in this detailed description are typically stored on a computer-readable storage medium, which may be any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by a computer system.” Para. 124, “The methods and processes described in the detailed description section can be embodied as code and/or data, which can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium as described above. When a computer system reads and executes the code and/or data stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer system performs the methods and processes embodied as data structures and code and stored within the computer-readable storage medium.”), execution of which by the processor causes the psychological state estimation system to:
acquire, from a user terminal of the subject, the behavior data of the subject, the behavior data including
service operation data, which is acquired by operation on the user terminal and includes data of the subject operating a service function on the user terminal, the service function including at least one of an autonomy function, a competence function, a relatedness function, a message viewing function, a message acceptability acquisition function, and a behavior registration function that are related to the object behavior of the subject (Ram, para. 82, “The user feature vector may include, but is not limited to: demographic features (such as age, gender, location, etc.); questionnaire responses (such as persona