DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed December 11, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 7, and 11-16 have been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 17-20 are new. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant notes Claim Objections, pg. 10 of Remarks:
Claim Objections
The Office objected to claim 13 as containing informalities. By this Amendment, claim 13 is amended for clarity and to correct informalities. These amendments obviate the asserted claim objection. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to claim 13 are respectfully requested.
Withdrawn based on the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 10 of Remarks:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Office rejected claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claim 1 recites "acquire biological information of a user including (i) sensor measurements from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass and (ii) a face image captured by a user terminal and resume information of the user ... (a) estimating a physiological age from the bone-mass measurement by table lookup based on the sensor measurements and estimating an appearance age from the face image, (b) computing a difference between the physiological age and the age from the resume, and (c) determining that the health risk is present when the difference is at least a threshold." Applicant respectfully submits that the recited claim language is directed to patent eligible subject matter based on at least the above claim language, which includes particular machines that capture specific types of data that is explicitly integrated into the determination of a health risk to provide an improvement that is not possible using the human mind. For example, the non-limiting description of paragraph 0262 of the Pre-Grant Publication indicates that the determination of a risk of dementia is possible using captured facial images.
Respectfully, diagnosing someone falls under certain methods of organizing human activity by managing personal behavior. For example, diagnosing a person can be following rules or instruction or is teaching about health.
A. Step 2A, Prong One - Not "directed to" an abstract idea10
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim is not directed to organizing human activity or mental steps. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the recited claim language is directed to a particular improvement in computer-implemented control over what the user interface permits a user to select, based on computed physiological constraints from sensor/vision data. The claim recites (a) specific data sources and structures (wearable bone-mass measurements; face images; a task list data structure with METs/calorie and speech/interactivity fields); (b) specific computations (table lookup to estimate physiological age; vision-based age estimation; difference-to-resume-age thresholding); and (c) a specific control action over the UI: automatically filtering and disabling selection of tasks that exceed a computed allowable load range, and proposing an alternative that fits the range.
The above “wearable bone-mass measurements” raise the issue of teachings. There is nothing in the disclosure to teach this.
From Applicant’s specification:
“The biological information 200 of the user 20 may include at least one of pieces of health information indicating a health state of the user 20, such as weight, muscle mass, a body fat percentage, a visceral fat level, a subcutaneous fat percentage, a basal metabolic rate, a skeletal muscle percentage, a body mass index (BMI), a body age, a body water content, and estimated bone mass of the user 20 that are measured by, for example, a general body composition monitor.” [0095]
Therefore, some type of general body composition monitor is used to estimate bone mass.
It's also indefinite as to using a wearable device to measure bone mass, how is this technically done and why would this be done anyway since you would not need to take bone mass readings continuously?
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the recited claim language is not merely "providing recommendations" or "displaying information." The UI is state-changed to enforce constraints derived from biometric computation. That is a technological implementation that constrains the computer's operation and the set of permissible user actions, such as those described in the Enfish decision, related to data-centric improvements; the McRO decision, related to specific rules that constrain how results are produced; and the Trading Techs. decision, related to GUI that improves the way the computer enables user interaction.
Enfish improved computer technology and McRO was directed to 3D animation technology with specific rules. Trading Technologies non-precedential case improved accuracy of trading with their specific structure. Respectfully, Applicant is using not improving technology.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two - Integrated into a practical application
Assuming arguendo that the recited claim language is considered to be directed to an abstract idea, the claim language at least integrates any such concept into a practical application by reciting (a) concrete sources (wearable/vision) and concrete evaluation mechanics (table lookup; difference threshold) that produce a risk value not achievable by inspection alone; and (b) device-level enforcement that filters and disables out-of-range options and injects an alternative. This goes beyond "insignificant post-solution activity" or "presentation," such as described in the DDR Holdings decision, related to a claimed solution rooted in computer technology.
Using existing technology such as computers has not been found to be enough to make abstract claims statutory.
C. Step 2B - Significantly more than well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC)
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office bears the burden, per the Berkheimer decision, to support any WURC finding with evidence. Nothing of record shows that, as an ordered combination, it was routine/conventional to: (a) compute a physiological/appearance age from wearable bone-mass data and/or a face image, (b) compare to resume age to produce a risk via an explicit difference-threshold, and then (c) enforce that risk by automatically filtering a task list keyed with METs/speech-interactivity, disabling UI selection of out-of-range tasks, and optionally proposing a compliant alternative. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the coordinated chain of features recited in the claim language is materially different from simply "analyzing and displaying." It is a specific machine-implemented control loop that constrains the computer's available actions based on computed physiology, which is not shown as routine by the cited art or examiner's assertions.
The rejection is not based on WURC.
From the MPEP 2106.07(a) III…
At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Therefore, evidence is not required.
For at least the reasons set forth above, claim 1 should be considered as directed to patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claims 2-5, 7-13 and 16 depend from claim 1, recite additional features and are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claim 14 recites similar language as claim 1 and is directed to patent eligible subject matter for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 14, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Claim 15 recites similar language as claim 1 and is directed to patent eligible subject matter for reasons analogous to those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 15, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, are respectfully requested.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §112 Rejection, starting pg. 12 of Remarks:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Office rejected claims 11, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. By this Amendment, several claims are amended for clarity and to correct informalities. These amendments obviate the asserted indefiniteness rejection. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 11, 12 and 16, as being indefinite, are respectfully requested.
The prior rejections have been withdrawn, but the amendments have resulted in new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103 Rejection, starting pg. 13 of Remarks:
Applicant’s amendments have resulted in the prior art rejection withdrawn at this time.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method claim 14 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system claim 1 and product claim 15.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of:
A work assisting method comprising,
by one or more computers:
acquiring biological information of a user including (i) sensor measurements from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass and (ii) a face image captured by a user terminal and resume information of the user;
computing an evaluation value indicating a health risk for the user, by using the biological information and the resume information that have been acquired, including
(a) estimating a physiological age from the bone-mass measurement by table lookup based on sensor measurements and estimating an appearance age from the face image,
(b) computing a difference between the physiological age and the age from the resume, and
(c) determining that the health risk is present when the difference is at least a threshold; and
determining, by using the evaluation value indicating the health risk, a candidate of a task to present to the user by
(i) determining an allowable load range for the user,
(ii) accessing a task item list stored in the non-transitory memory that associates each task with load information including at least one of a calorie consumption or Metabolic equivalents (METs) value and, and for communication tasks, a speech-amount interactivity level,
(iii) automatically filtering the task list to produce a permitted set that does not exceed the allowable load range, and
(iv) causing a user interface to present the permitted set while disabling selection of tasks outside the allowable load range.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior. Acquiring biological and resume information, computing an evaluation value indicating a health risk for the user, estimating a physiological age from a bone-mass table lookup and estimating an age from a face image, computing a difference between physiological age and a resume, determining health risk when the difference is a threshold, determining a candidate of a task to the user by determining an allowable load range for the user, accessing a task that associates task with load information including calorie consumption or metabolic equivalents value, filtering a task list to produce permitted set that does not exceed an allowable load range, and present the permitted set is managing personal behavior following rules and instructions as well as teaching. Determining a candidate of a task to present to a user is business relations where a task presented to a user is part of a business relationship between a user and candidate, giving the claim it’s broadest reasonable interpretation (see Fig. 3 of a work assisting system, and ref. 20 and refs. 40 and 42 and where a business relationship is established between an elderly person and a person with children). It’s also interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior, business relations, or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In that a person can acquire user biological and resume information with their mind or using pen and paper, compute an evaluation value, and determine a candidate to present to the user, the claim is abstract under mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Acquiring data, evaluating the data, and presenting a result is obtaining information, analyzing it, and displaying results, which has been shown to be a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A). Therefore, claims 1 and 15 are abstract for this reason also.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: memory, processor, (Claim 1); computers (Claim 14); non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer (Claim 15). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See para. [002] where the computer can be various devices. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 14, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as acquiring (receiving) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 1, 14, and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claims 1, 14, and 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claims 8-12 recite a target person and claim 10 includes a child. Therefore, these claims are also abstract under certain methods of organizing human activity as the involve managing interactions between people. Claim 11 recites remuneration, which is a financial interaction, therefore, also abstract under certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, the claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-5 and 7-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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.
Applicant’s claim 14 recites “acquiring biological information of a user including (i) sensor measurements from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass and (ii) a face image captured by a user terminal and resume information of the user;…” where no teaching of “sensor” from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass can be found in the specification.
Applicant’s specification teaches:
“Biological information acquired by the acquisition unit 102 includes health information indicating a health state of the user 20. Further, biological information including health information indicating a health state includes information relating to bone mass.” [0091]
Therefore, acquisition unit 102 includes health information that indicates health state includes information relating to bone mass.
The specification also teaches:
“The biological information 200 of the user 20 may include at least one of pieces of health information indicating a health state of the user 20, such as weight, muscle mass, a body fat percentage, a visceral fat level, a subcutaneous fat percentage, a basal metabolic rate, a skeletal muscle percentage, a body mass index (BMI), a body age, a body water content, and estimated bone mass of the user 20 that are measured by, for example, a general body composition monitor.” [0095]
Therefore, some type of general body composition monitor measures the bone mass of a user.
The specification also teaches:
“In another example, the biological information 200 may include biological information acquired from the wearable terminal 32 worn by the user 20. For example, the biological information 200 may include at least one of a heart rate, the number of steps, calorie consumption, a walking record, an oxygen saturation, blood pressure, a body temperature, and electrocardiogram information. In the example of FIG. 6 (a), the acquisition date and time is preferably a date and time when biological information is measured by the wearable terminal 32, but is not limited thereto, and may be, for example, a date and time when the user terminal 30 receives the biological information from the wearable terminal 32.” [0097]
Therefore, biological information is acquired from a wearable terminal, where the information does not include body mass.
In summary, there is no teaching of: 1) sensor measurements; 2) wearable terminal indicative of bone mass. The specification teaches a general body composition monitor to estimate bone mass and the word “sensor” is not found in the specification. Claims 1 and 15 have a similar problem.
Applicant’s claim 14 recites “(iii) automatically filtering the task list to produce a permitted set that does not exceed the allowable load range, and…” where no teaching of automatically filtering and produce a permitted set can be found in Applicant’s specification.
From Applicant’s specification…
“Specifically, the determination unit 106 acquires an evaluation value of a health risk for the user 20 from, for example, the health risk information 220 in Fig. 7, and, when the evaluation value of a health risk satisfies a criterion, the user 20 determines, based on the evaluation value of the health risk, a task load level in a range of an allowable load, extracts a task item being relevant to the determined task load level from the task item list 230 in Fig. 8, and determines the task item as a candidate of a task that the user 20 is capable of taking charge of. Herein, a criterion includes a matter that an evaluation value of a health risk indicates that a lightening of a task load is necessary or a task load needs to be increased.” [0086]
Therefore, the specification teaches a user extracts a task in a range of an allowable load and determines a task item as a candidate of a task. There is no teaching of automatically filtering and produce a permitted set. Claims 1 and 15 have a similar problem.
Applicant’s claim 14 recites “(iv) causing a user interface to present the permitted set while disabling selection of tasks outside the allowable load range” where no teaching of present permitted set and disabling selection of tasks can be found in the written description.
From Applicant’s specification:
“Note that, an allowable load range may be a restriction on a task load of each task, or may be a restriction on a total task load when the user 20 selects a plurality of tasks. In the latter case, it may be configured such that the output processing unit 108 totals a task load of a task selected by the user 20 in a task candidate screen 300 presented to the user 20, and, when the allowable load range is exceeded, a message notifying the fact may be output, or a task exceeding the allowable load range cannot be selected. Moreover, the output processing unit 108 may propose an alternative task satisfying the allowable load range.” [0083]
Therefore, the above teaches when an allowable load range is exceeded, a task exceeding the allowable load range cannot be selected. Claims 1 and 15 have a similar problem.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-20 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 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.
Claim 14 recites “(b) computing a difference between the physiological age and the age from the resume” where physiological age is indefinite as there are two physiological ages from bone-mass and face image. Claims 1 and 15 have a similar problem. For examination purposes this is interpreted as requiring both bone or face.
Claim 14 recites “acquiring biological information of a user including (i) sensor measurements from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass and (ii) a face image captured by a user terminal and resume information of the user;…” where it is indefinite as to a sensor measurements from a wearable terminal indicative of bone mass. The specification teaches body composition monitor. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as a device providing bone mass information. Claims 1 and 15 have a similar problem.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-20 are further rejected as they depend from their respective independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art Search
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. Based on prior art search, the best prior art found to date is JP 2019175447 to Takuma et al. Takuma teaches age and biometric information. However, they fail to teach for example resume or face image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches age:
US-11030554-B2; US-8386300-B2; US-20070185757-A1; US-20120214143-A1; US-20130290207-A1; US-20140317079-A1; US-20150379454-A1; US-20120095933-A1
The following prior art teaches face and bone for determining age:
Shejul et al., “Comprehensive Review on Facial based Human Age Estimation,” 2017, International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing, pp. 3211-3216.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684