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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-12 have been examined.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recite(s) a system, which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 11 recite(s) a method, which is within a statutory category (process). Claim 12 recite(s) a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is within a statutory category (manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-.07), 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. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The limitation of Independent claims 1-12 recites at least one abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites the steps of
An information processing system comprising:
at least one processor, wherein
the at least one processor acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application, and transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application.
The limitations “acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application, and transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application” constitutes (c) mental processes because these limitations could be performed by the professionals to acquire patient data using mind and paper. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claim 11 and claim 12 is identical as the abstract idea for claim 1, because the only difference between claim 1, 11 and claim 12 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claims 11 recites a method, and whereas claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Furthermore, the following depending claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite further steps of transferring irst information to second information for motivating the continuous practice of the action, and thus part of mental process.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim, as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea 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, wherein
the at least one processor acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application, and
transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application. ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g))).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of ”the at least one processor acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application”, this is a pre-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of pre- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea
Regarding the additional limitation of ” transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application”, this is a post-solution activity. The examiner submits that this additional limitation does not provide any additional element, but only merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner of post- solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea ((merely data gathering steps as noted, see MPEP 2106.05(g)))
Specifically, the use of processor, memory, computer as in claims 1, 11, 12 is not positively claimed in the claim as it defines the service but is claimed insufficient to a structure or apparatus that it represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). (Spec. 0070)
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, 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 implement and revise a wellbeing plan, a productivity, 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 is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 11, 12 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a processor, memory, does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping or organizing human activity. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea)
The remaining dependent claim limitations are not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 11, 12 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For claims 1, 11, 12 limit the use of a hardware, processor, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components (Spec. 0070). The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35USC101 as being held patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites “acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application, and transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application”. However, the limitation “first information/second information” renders the claim indefinite. The term of first/second information is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention
Claims 6-8 recite an expression of the information”. The term “an expression of the information” in claim 6 through claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an expression of the information ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohnemus et al. (US20170147775A1 hereinafter Ohnemus).
With respect to claim 1, Ohnemus teaches a information processing system comprising:
at least one processor, wherein
the at least one processor acquires first information related to lifestyle collected through a first lifestyle improvement support application, and transfers the first information to second information based on corresponding relationship between the acquired first information and the second information used in a second lifestyle improvement support application (‘775; Para 0034: Ohnemus describes a computer-implemented system and method configured to acquire health-related and/or medical-related data, and to process the data, for example, for diagnostic, benchmarking, analytic and/or data distribution (e.g., reporting) purposes. For example, the systems and methods herein provide feedback substantially in real-time via an on-line and/or mobile platform. Using the systems and methods disclosed herein, information can be received from user devices, and the information can be processed to provide various forms of feedback, such as alerts and notifications; Para 0045: the Health Score can be calculated based on the collected health information using an algorithm. The user or a communication subsystem provides the health-related information health-related feedback information and can make modifications in his/her lifestyles that can directly impact the user's Health Score and improve the user's health, more generally; Para 0051: Ohnemus further discloses one or more components can be factored into a measurement to determine an extent to which lifestyle characteristics can impact a user's future health. Examples of such components include fitness, nutrition, background physical activity, stress reduction, weight management, and smoking cessation. Two or more of these components can interrelate, which can be reflected in an associated individual and overall Health Scores. The weights with which the components contribute to an overall lifestyle score can be determined dynamically from two factors: (1) the sensitivity of the MHM score to changes in a set of modifiable risk factors (MRF) for a given user, and (2) a sensitivity matrix that relates the effect of each lifestyle component on each of the MRF. This mechanism leads to a recommendation to the user, based on a ranking in accordance with relevance of the factors that relate to the user's changing lifestyle).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when a diagnosis result of lifestyle is included in information which is transferred from the first information to the second information, the processor sets, based on the transferred diagnosis result, at least one of an action to be practiced by a target user and a content which encourages to practice the action (‘775; Para 0170: The health parameter data and Health Scores can be stored over time, in a memory or other database, so that a user can track his or her progress. Charts can be generated in order for a user to track progress and analyze where there can be improvement in behavior. Moreover, trends can be identified that can lead to the diagnosis of medical problems and/or eating habits. For example, if a person's weight is continuing to increase despite the same or increased amount of fitness activity, the system can trigger or suggest that they seek certain medical tests (e.g. a thyroid test, pregnancy test) to determine the cause of the weight gain.).
With respect to claim 3, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when information that motivates a continuous practice of an action is included in information which is transferred from the first information to the second information, the processor sets, based on the transferred information that motivates the continuous practice of the action, at least one of a difficulty level of an action to be practiced by a target user and a difficulty level of a content which encourages to practice the action (‘775; Para 0172: Comparison of Health Scores with others in the group can provide motivation to the individuals in the group to compete to improve their Health Scores. Other information, such as health tips, medical news, drug information, local fitness events, health services, advertising and discounts for medical and/or fitness related supplies and service, issuance of fitness challenges or health related goals).
With respect to claim 4, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when a content learned before transferring and a record of proficiency with the content are included in information which is transferred from the first information to the second information, the processor sets, based on the transferred record, at least one of a difficulty level of an action to be practiced by a target user and a difficulty level of a content which encourages to practice the action (‘775; Para 0122: FIG. 10A, a display screen 1000 can be provided that includes a graphical indication of a user's goals activities, both in terms of energy and duration. Moreover, a goal line can be provided in display screen 1000, which provides the user with an amount of calories he/she needs to burn per time period to maintain the user's current Health Score. In connection with certain features associated with goals, goals can be set by both users and health professionals, and can span a wide range from simple goals over training plans to specific programs. In one or more implementations, a goals catalog can be included for a user to select one or more goals. Examples include: workouts (Burn n energy per week for t period target date, log n activities per period, run a marathon by t date, etc.); Health Score (reach a score of “n” by target date, etc.). Other examples include: training plan; achievements (complete achievement a by target date, etc.); smoking cessation program; and weight management).
With respect to claim 5, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when a record of an action practiced before transferring is included in the first information, the processor converts the record to corresponding quantitative information, and transfers the corresponding quantitative information to the second information (‘775; Para 00): conversion modification to lifestyle change).
With respect to claim 6, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when information related to health in the first information is expressed in a first unit and information related to health in the second information is expressed in a second unit which is different from the first unit, the processor converts an expression of the information related to the health from the first unit to the second unit (‘775; Paras 0062-0063).
With respect to claim 7, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when substance of a target user’s meal in the first information is expressed in a food name, the processor converts an expression in the food name to an expression in calorie or nutrient, and transfers the converted expression to the second information (‘775; Para 0094).
With respect to claim 8, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when a medication record by a target user is included in the first information, the processor converts an expression of the medication record according to granularity expressed in the second information and transfers the converted expression to the second information (‘775;Para 0051: Ohnemus further discloses one or more components can be factored into a measurement to determine an extent to which lifestyle characteristics can impact a user's future health).
With respect to claim 9, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein in an update or an upgrade of the second lifestyle improvement support application which is executed after transferring the first information to the second information, when the first information in a holding state becomes a state ready to be transferred, the processor executes transferring the first information in a state ready to be transferred to the second information (‘775; Paras 0074-0075).
With respect to claim 10, Ohnemus teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when an operation of a transferring button is accepted on an operation screen of the second lifestyle improvement support application, the processor executes a process of transferring the first information that is a target for transferring (‘775; Para 0074).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686