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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/3/24, 8/6/24 was acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
In the instant application, claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are drawn to at least one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition).
Step 2A:
However, claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, 10,
Prong 1 analysis:
The limitations of “a classifier configured to classify, for each user, whether a current status of a user is moving or playing a game, based on a combination of an amount of change in the position information and a magnitude of the acceleration included in the plurality of types of information for each user, the operation management information, and any one of a plurality of types of classification algorithms for classifying the current status of the user; and a presenter configured to, when the current status is classified as being moving, immediately present a first status image representing a classified current status as an image of a moving body in association with a user image representing the user with an image, and when the current status is classified as being playing the game, immediately present a second status image representing the classified current status and different from the first status image in association with the user image”, are considered to fall within the mental processes grouping. The recited limitations, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitations of “a classifier configured to classify, for each user, whether a current status of a user is moving or playing a game, based on a combination of an amount of change in the position information and a magnitude of the acceleration included in the plurality of types of information for each user, the operation management information, and any one of a plurality of types of classification algorithms for classifying the current status of the user; and a presenter configured to, when the current status is classified as being moving, immediately present a first status image representing a classified current status as an image of a moving body in association with a user image representing the user with an image, and when the current status is classified as being playing the game, immediately present a second status image representing the classified current status and different from the first status image in association with the user image”, are considered to fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (managing personal behavior). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer elements does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Thus, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2 analysis:
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements “a collector configured to immediately collect, for each user who possesses a portable terminal, a plurality of types of information including position information by a GPS (Global Positioning Systems) sensor, an acceleration by an acceleration sensor, and operation management information indicating an operation status of an application software, the portable terminal being equipped with the GPS sensor and the acceleration sensor and having game application software installed, a screen of the portable terminal”, are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. The claimed elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. As such, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, in view of Berkheimer, the recited additional elements are considered as conventional activity. For instance, Morinaga et al. (2014/0007227) teaches the recited additional elements (Fig 1, 3A-3C, ¶¶0034-0036).
In addition, with regards to dependent claims, the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For instance, regarding claims 1-10, each claim describes physical or software elements that provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea, which is similar to the conventional activity or as insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information, based on types of information, for collection, analysis and display in EPG, gathering, receiving and transmitting data in Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs., buySAFE, and performing repetitive calculation in Flook, Bancorp.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 is/are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinaga et al. (2014/0007227) in view of Narasimhan et al. (2019/0038184).
Re Claim 1,
Morinaga discloses a current status presentation system (¶¶0028) comprising:
a collector configured to immediately collect, for each user who possesses a portable terminal, a plurality of types of information including position information by a GPS (Global Positioning Systems) sensor, an acceleration by an acceleration sensor, and operation management information indicating an operation status of an application software, the portable terminal being equipped with the GPS sensor and the acceleration sensor and having game application software installed (Fig 3A-3C, ¶¶0034-0036, 0038; the mobile device includes an acceleration sensor and a position information sensor for acquiring position information from a GPS satellite, further, the sensor is used for detecting an active state of an application in a portable terminal);
a classifier configured to classify, for each user, whether a current status of a user is moving or playing a game, based on a combination of an amount of change in the position information and a magnitude of the acceleration included in the plurality of types of information for each user, the operation management information, and any one of a plurality of types of classification algorithms for classifying the current status of the user, the current status is classified as being moving or the current status is classified as being playing the game (Fig 4, ¶¶0034-0036, 0038-0040, 0042; the portable device uses the combined sensors to determine the active status, wherein depending on the active state application, the active status is classified into different motion states).
Morinaga does not explicitly disclose immediately present a first status image representing a classified current status as an image of a moving body on a screen of the portable terminal in association with a user image representing the user with an image, and immediately present a second status image representing the classified current status and different from the first status image on the screen of the portable terminal in association with the user image.
However, Narasimhan teaches immediately present a first status image representing a classified current status as an image of a moving body on a screen of the portable terminal in association with a user image representing the user with an image, and immediately present a second status image representing the classified current status and different from the first status image on the screen of the portable terminal in association with the user image (¶¶0033-0037, 0045; the mobile device detects a user’s current activity and displays image or icon representing the activity on the user interface, wherein different activity displays different image or icon). Narasimhan further teaches such a configuration seamlessly tracks not only past activities of but also current activities, in order to provide a holistic understanding of life events and a plan for the future (¶0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Narasimhan into the mobile terminal of Morinaga in order to provide a holistic understanding of life events and a plan for the future.
Re Claim 2,
Morinaga discloses the collector collects, as one of the plurality of types of information, first information detected by a sensor that is other than the GPS sensor and the acceleration sensor and mounted on the portable terminal (Fig 3A-3C, ¶¶0034-0036, 0059-0061).
Re Claim 3,
Morinaga discloses the collector collects second information managed by software installed in the portable terminal as one of the plurality of types of information (¶¶0034-0036, 0059-0061).
Re Claim 4,
Morinaga discloses the collector collects, as the plurality of types of information, both of first information detected by a sensor that is other than the GPS sensor and the acceleration sensor and mounted on the portable terminal and second information managed by software installed in the portable terminal (¶¶0034-0036, 0059-0061).
Re Claims 9, 10,
Claims are substantially similar to claim 1. See claim 1 for rejection and motivation.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinaga et al. (2014/0007227) in view of Narasimhan et al. (2019/0038184), further in view of Aksamit (2017/0094473).
Re Claim 5,
Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the classifier selects one of the plurality of types of classification algorithms as a classification algorithm optimum for the combination, and classifies the current status of the user for each user based on a selected optimum classification algorithm and the combination, and the optimum classification algorithm is a classification algorithm with a highest accuracy for identifying the current status of the user.
However, Aksamit teaches the classifier selects one of the plurality of types of classification algorithms as a classification algorithm optimum for the combination, and classifies the current status of the user for each user based on a selected optimum classification algorithm and the combination, and the optimum classification algorithm is a classification algorithm with a highest accuracy for identifying the current status of the user (¶¶0012, 0034, 0065-0066, 0078, 0093). Aksamit further teaches such a configuration enables effective detection of context by powering on a minimum number of sensors (¶0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Aksamit into the activity monitoring system of Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan in order to enable effective detection of context by powering on a minimum number of sensors.
Re Claim 6,
Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the classifier selects two or more classification algorithms suitable for the combination from the plurality of types of classification algorithms, and classifies the current status of the user for each user based on the selected classification algorithms and the combination, and the classification algorithms suitable for the combination are two or more types of classification algorithms arranged in a descending order of accuracy for identifying the current status of the user. However, Aksamit teaches the classifier selects two or more classification algorithms suitable for the combination from the plurality of types of classification algorithms, and classifies the current status of the user for each user based on the selected classification algorithms and the combination, and the classification algorithms suitable for the combination are two or more types of classification algorithms arranged in a descending order of accuracy for identifying the current status of the user (¶¶0012, 0034, 0065-0066, 0078, 0093). See claim 5 as motivation.
Re Claim 7,
Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan discloses all limitations as set forth above but is silent on the plurality of types of classification algorithms include discriminant analysis, multiple regression analysis, an analysis method based on quantification theory, and decision tree analysis. However, Aksamit teaches the plurality of types of classification algorithms include discriminant analysis, multiple regression analysis, an analysis method based on quantification theory, and decision tree analysis (¶¶0012, 0034, 0065-0066, 0078, 0093). See claim 5 as motivation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinaga et al. (2014/0007227) in view of Narasimhan et al. (2019/0038184), further in view of Yuen et al. (2015/0269848).
Re Claim 8,
Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan discloses all limitations as set forth above including the first status image and the second status image and the portable terminal is moved by the user during the game but is silent on status image are animation images. However, Yuen teaches status image are animation images (¶¶0200, 0212-0213). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Yuen into the system of Morinaga as modified by Narasimhan in order to allow the user to quickly identify the activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715