DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,256. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as provided below in the claim comparison, all of the subject matter recited in claims 1-14 of the instant application is required either expressly or in equivalent terminology in claims 1-15 and 8-14 of US Patent 12,059,256.
US Application 18/764,465
US Patent 12,059,256
1. An information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to:
estimate a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user, classify the worry cause, and present a message based on the classification of the worry cause.
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to classify the worry cause based on determination that the worry cause matches a specific cause.
1. An information processing system, comprising: a control unit configured to:
estimate at least one of a first worry cause of a user or a degree of worry of the user based on sensing data related to the user,
classify the first worry cause based on determination that the first worry cause matches a specific cause, control to present a message to the user based on the classification of the first worry cause, determine a change in the estimated degree of worry of the user based on the presented message, and switch a tone to present the message to the user based on the determined change in the degree of worry.
Note: the terms “circuitry” and “control unit” are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as equivalent terms.
3. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to switch contents of the message based on the classification of the worry cause.
2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to switch contents of the message based on the classification of the first worry cause.
4. The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: control an agent, wherein the agent is configured to: interact with the user, transmit information to and from a plurality of registered users in a specific social media, and receive information to and from the plurality of registered users in the specific social media, classify the worry cause of the user based on an answer of the plurality of registered users in the specific social media, and present the message to the user based on the classification of the worry cause.
3. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to: control an agent, wherein the agent is configured to: interact with the user, transmit information to and from a plurality of registered users in a specific social media, and receive information to and from the plurality of registered users in the specific social media, classify a second worry cause of the user based on an answer of the plurality of registered users in the specific social media, wherein the second worry cause is based on an interaction of the agent with the user, and control to present the message to the user based on the classification of the second worry cause.
5. The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: switch the contents of the message based on: determination that a reality recognition of the worry cause of the user is not valid, or determination that the reality recognition of the user is valid and a worry corresponding to the worry cause is not solvable by the user.
4. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to: switch the contents of the message based on: determination that a reality recognition of the first worry cause of the user is not valid, or determination that the reality recognition of the user is valid and a worry corresponding to the first worry cause is not solvable by the user.
6. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: acquire a relationship between the worry cause of the user and the classification of the worry cause, estimate the classification based on the worry cause of the user, and present the message to the user based on the classification.
7. The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: acquire a relationship between the worry cause of the user and the classification of the worry cause, estimate the classification based on the worry cause of the user, and present the message to the user based on the classification.
5. The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to: acquire a relationship between the first worry cause of the user and the classification of the first worry cause, estimate the classification based on the first worry cause of the user, and present the message to the user based on the classification.
8. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the worry cause based on a specific feature amount of the sensing data.
8. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to estimate at least one of the first worry cause of the user or the degree of worry of the user based on a specific feature amount of the sensing data.
9. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of a plurality of types of messages to the user.
9. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to present one of a plurality of types of messages to the user.
10. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on an attribute of the user.
10. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on an attribute of the user.
11. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on a situation of the user.
11. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on a situation of the user.
12. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: present one of the plurality of types of messages to the user, and monitor a change in a degree of worry of the user to acquire an optimal message for the user.
12. The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to: present one of the plurality of types of messages to the user, and monitor the change in the degree of worry of the user to acquire an optimal message for the user.
13. An information processing method, comprising: estimating, by circuitry, a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user; classifying, by the circuitry, the worry cause; and presenting, by the circuitry, a message based on the classification of the worry cause.
13. An information processing method, comprising: estimating, by a processor, at least one of a worry cause of a user or a degree of worry of the user based on sensing data related to the user, classifying, by the processor, the worry cause based on determination that the worry cause matches a specific cause, controlling to present, by the processor, a message to the user based on the classification of the worry cause, determining, by the processor, a change in the estimated degree of worry of the user based on the presented message, and switching, by the processor, a tone to present the message to the user based on the determined change in the degree of worry.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: estimating a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user; classifying the worry cause; and presenting a message based on the classification of the worry cause.
14. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: estimating at least one of a worry cause of a user or a degree of worry of the user based on sensing data related to the user, classifying the worry cause based on determination that the worry cause matches a specific cause, presenting a message to the user based on the classification of the worry cause, determining a change in the estimated degree of worry of the user based on the presented message, and switching a tone to present the message to the user based on the determined change in the degree of worry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
STEP 1 = YES: The claimed invention is to a process and product, and thus fall under one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 1 = YES: The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion)(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Moreover, the claims recite steps akin to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which the court in Electric Power Group held to recite a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This includes: An information processing system and/or method, comprising:
estimate a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user (i.e., mental observation and evaluation), classify the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation), and present a message based on the classification of the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
classify the worry cause based on determination that the worry cause matches a specific cause (i.e., mental evaluation);
switch contents of the message based on the classification of the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
interact with the user (i.e., interaction between individuals, such as teaching), transmit information to and from a plurality of registered users in a specific social media (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching), and receive information to and from the plurality of registered users in the specific social media (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching), classify the worry cause of the user based on an answer of the plurality of registered users in the specific social media (i.e., mental evaluation), and present the message to the user based on the classification of the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
switch the contents of the message based on: determination that a reality recognition of the worry cause of the user is not valid, or determination that the reality recognition of the user is valid and a worry corresponding to the worry cause is not solvable by the user (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
acquire a relationship between the worry cause of the user and the classification of the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation), estimate the classification based on the worry cause of the user (i.e., mental evaluation), and present the message to the user based on the classification (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
acquire a relationship between the worry cause of the user and the classification of the worry cause (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching), estimate the classification based on the worry cause of the user (i.e., mental evaluation), and present the message to the user based on the classification (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
estimate the worry cause based on a specific feature amount of the sensing data (i.e., mental evaluation);
present one of a plurality of types of messages to the user (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
present one of the plurality of types of messages based on an attribute of the user (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
present one of the plurality of types of messages based on a situation of the user (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching);
present one of the plurality of types of messages to the user (i.e., mental evaluation and/or interaction between individuals, such as teaching), and monitor a change in a degree of worry of the user to acquire an optimal message for the user (i.e., mental observation and evaluation).
As indicated above, each of the steps is akin to a mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus fall within an enumerated category of abstract ideas. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) to help them complete the recited steps above, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
STEP 2A, Prong 2 = NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
To the extent the claims recite additional elements related to defining a computer environment to implement the abstract idea above (i.e., circuitry and an agent in the context of controlling an agent, wherein the agent is configured to: perform the exception identified under Prong 1), they are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Further, the specification does not disclose, nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the described invention provides a technical improvement. Similarly, the claims lack any technical detail that would achieve any technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or any other technology or technical field. Rather, the generic manner which the circuitry and agent are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use, and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 physical components identified above 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). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
STEP 2B = NO: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as provided under Prong 2, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that the claims do not represent a technical improvement. Moreover, the specification of the instant application further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine and conventional functionality, which refers to elements of the computer system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)(e.g., see par. 0049 which describes the computer system in generic terms, thus demonstrating it is relied upon for its well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality: The control unit 100 functions as an arithmetic processing device and a control device, and controls the overall operation of the information processing terminal 1 according to various programs. The control unit 100 is realized by an electronic circuit such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a microprocessor, for example. Further, the control unit 100 may include a read only memory (ROM) that stores a program, a calculation parameter, or the like to use, and may include a random access memory (RAM) that temporarily stores a parameter or the like which changes as appropriate). As previously discussed under Prong 2, the specification does not expressly disclose any technical improvement, nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Likewise, the claims do not reflect any technical improvement to the functionality of the computer itself, or any other technology or technical field. Thus, the recited circuitry and agent in the claims amount to merely automating a manual process with no technical detail how it is acheived, which the courts have held to be insufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-14 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 (AIA )
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/007188 A1 to KANEKO.
Regarding claim 1, KANEKO teaches An information processing system, comprising: circuitry (Abstract: stress management system; par. 0006: It should be noted that general or specific embodiments may be implemented as a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, a storage medium, or any selective combination thereof) configured to:
estimate a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user (par. 0130: the estimator 12 determines that the one user has stress, sets the one user as a target user, and executes cause estimation processing for estimating a cause of the stress),
classify the worry cause (par. 0131: estimator 12 estimates a type of the stress of the target user using life log data corresponding to a detection time point of biological data that affects an increase in the stress level of the target user. When estimating that the stress of the target user is an interpersonal stress caused by contact with others, the estimator 12 further estimates an assailant, who is a cause of the interpersonal stress, using the life log data used for the estimation), and
present a message based on the classification of the worry cause (par. 0132: notifier 13 executes notification content determination processing; par. 0133: the notifier 13 notifies the target user of the result of the estimation in S300 and notifies the notification target person determined in S400 of the notification content determined in S400).
Regarding claim 13, KANEKO teaches An information processing method (Abstract: stress management system; par. 0006: It should be noted that general or specific embodiments may be implemented as a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, a storage medium, or any selective combination thereof), comprising:
estimating, by circuitry, a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user (par. 0130: the estimator 12 determines that the one user has stress, sets the one user as a target user, and executes cause estimation processing for estimating a cause of the stress);
classifying, by the circuitry, the worry cause (par. 0131: estimator 12 estimates a type of the stress of the target user using life log data corresponding to a detection time point of biological data that affects an increase in the stress level of the target user. When estimating that the stress of the target user is an interpersonal stress caused by contact with others, the estimator 12 further estimates an assailant, who is a cause of the interpersonal stress, using the life log data used for the estimation); and
presenting, by the circuitry, a message based on the classification of the worry cause (par. 0132: notifier 13 executes notification content determination processing; par. 0133: the notifier 13 notifies the target user of the result of the estimation in S300 and notifies the notification target person determined in S400 of the notification content determined in S400).
Regarding claim 14, KANEKO teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations (Abstract: stress management system; par. 0006: It should be noted that general or specific embodiments may be implemented as a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, a storage medium, or any selective combination thereof), the operations comprising:
estimating a worry cause of a user based on sensing data of the user (par. 0130: the estimator 12 determines that the one user has stress, sets the one user as a target user, and executes cause estimation processing for estimating a cause of the stress);
classifying the worry cause (par. 0131: estimator 12 estimates a type of the stress of the target user using life log data corresponding to a detection time point of biological data that affects an increase in the stress level of the target user. When estimating that the stress of the target user is an interpersonal stress caused by contact with others, the estimator 12 further estimates an assailant, who is a cause of the interpersonal stress, using the life log data used for the estimation); and
presenting a message based on the classification of the worry cause (par. 0132: notifier 13 executes notification content determination processing; par. 0133: the notifier 13 notifies the target user of the result of the estimation in S300 and notifies the notification target person determined in S400 of the notification content determined in S400).
Regarding claim 2, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to classify the worry cause based on determination that the worry cause matches a specific cause (par. 0162: it is possible to make the target user aware contact with which person causes the interpersonal stress of the target user and what type of interpersonal stress the interpersonal stress is).
Regarding claim 3, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to switch contents of the message based on the classification of the worry cause. (par. 0130: the estimator 12 … executes cause estimation processing for estimating a cause of the stress; par. 0133: the notifier 13 notifies the target user of the result of the estimation; par. 0214: the notifier 13 may execute stage notification processing illustrated in FIG. 18 to thereby change a notification method stepwise.).
Regarding claim 8, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the worry cause based on a specific feature amount of the sensing data (par. 0040: when the stress level of the user included in the stress data exceeds a first threshold, estimates whether or not stress of the user is interpersonal stress caused by contact with another person, using the life log data).
Regarding claim 9, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of a plurality of types of messages to the user (par. 0132: notifier 13 determines notification content notified … using the result of the estimation).
Regarding claim 10, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on an attribute of the user (par. 0132: the notifier 13 determines a notification target person out of people having a contact relation with the user using a result of the estimation in S300; par. 0164: notifier 13 determines to set, as notification content, the type of the interpersonal stress estimated in S300).
Regarding claim 11, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to present one of the plurality of types of messages based on a situation of the user (par. 0164: notifier 13 determines to set, as notification content, the type of the interpersonal stress estimated in S300).
Regarding claim 12, KANEKO further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: present one of the plurality of types of messages to the user, and monitor a change in a degree of worry of the user to acquire an optimal message for the user (par. 0164: notifier 13 determines to set, as notification content, the type of the interpersonal stress estimated in S300; par. 0233: the notifier 13 updates, in the data (FIG. 16) stored in the notification history storage 153, the relaxation information associated with the target notification history data to “relaxed” indicating that the stress of the target user has been relaxed (S741). Consequently, the notifier 13 ends the processing in S703 and subsequent steps that targets the target notification history data).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights