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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 1-8 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 significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 7), machine (claims 1-6), and article of manufacture (claim 8). Accordingly, claims 1-8 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing system comprising:
-at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor
-presents at least one high-priority action category based on information about lifestyle of a target user, and
-presents the target user with at least one action to be practiced by the target user in relation to the presented action category.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “certain methods of organizing human activity” because it is managing a user’s lifestyle, which is managing personal behavior.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information processing system comprising:
-at least one processor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 16), wherein the at least one processor
-presents at least one high-priority action category based on information about lifestyle of a target user, and
-presents the target user with at least one action to be practiced by the target user in relation to the presented action category.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 7-8 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 7-8 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: The claim specifies processor presenting actions to be selected, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: The claim specifies the processor presenting content, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4: The claim specifies the processor presenting analysis result, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies the processor presenting high-priority action category, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies processor updating an action, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 and 7-8 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as presenting high-priority action category and one action to be practiced, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3-6, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 3-6 (present and update) e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-8
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0246259).
As per claim 1, Tanaka teaches an information processing system comprising: at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor (Tanaka: para. 89-90)
-presents at least one high-priority action category based on information about lifestyle of a target user (Tanaka: para. 80; Present lifestyle improvement based on user priority.), and
-presents the target user with at least one action to be practiced by the target user in relation to the presented action category (Tanaka: para. 48; figure 6; para. 60-61; Present lifestyle improvement strategy information to the user to select.).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tanaka teaches wherein, when the at least one action is a plurality of actions, the processor presents the plurality of actions in a selectable manner (Tanaka: para. 48; Present lifestyle improvement strategy information to the user to select.).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 2 is as described. Tanaka teaches wherein the processor presents a content encouraging practice of an action selected by the target user (Tanaka: para. 48; User selects a lifestyle improvement strategy to be implemented.).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tanaka teaches wherein the processor presents the target user with an analysis result of the information about lifestyle to the target user (Tanaka: figure 1; para. 78; Lifestyle improvement simulation. Map the improvement strategy.).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 is as described. Tanaka teaches wherein, based on the analysis result and actual performance data of a user other than the target user, the processor presents the at least one high-priority action category (Tanaka: figure 1; para. 78; Lifestyle improvement simulation. Map the improvement strategy.).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tanaka teaches wherein the processor updates the at least one action to be practiced by the target user in a cycle shorter than a cycle of updating the action category (Tanaka: para. 45).
Claims 7-8 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Omayu et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2024/0290464 – Teaches a lifestyle improvement system that changes a user’s behavior.
Mehdi – U.S. Publication No. 2023/0170073 – Teaches a system for providing personalized nutrition and lifestyle recommendations.
Minturn – U.S. Publication No. 2019/0088159 – Teaches a well-being management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681