Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 08 July 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 12 were amended.
Claims 13-15 were added.
Claims 1-15 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 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite an apparatus, method, and computer-readable medium for controlling information processing, and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 11 being representative) …acquiring the biometric information and terminal information including a type of the first terminal and storing the biometric information and the terminal information…; associating the biometric information with a location of a designated sensor…; [outputting a command] to display information to be checked, including at least one of the biometric information, an image showing the location of the designated sensor, an image showing the first terminal, an item according to a function of the first terminal, and an item according to a function of the designated sensor; determining whether the biometric information for the location of the designated sensor is abnormal or not, based on at least one of [biometric and terminal] information accumulated… and information indicat[ing] a predetermined range…; [outputting a command] to present… the biometric information including a presentation of the alert that includes at least display alert contents, display advice based on the alert contents, and output an alert sound or without the presentation of the alert, depending on the determining, together with information corresponding to the location of the designated sensor; receiving control information for the first terminal from the second terminal; and [outputting a command] to send, to the first terminal based on the control information, instruction information for controlling the first terminal to the first terminal, wherein the instruction information controls at least one of the selection, sensitivity, and position of the designated sensor, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting an apparatus, a method, and a computer readable medium, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The claim encompasses rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow to transfer information and display instructions in the manner described in the abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements of (Claim 1) the combination of a communication unit, processor, display, and a storage unit comprising databases (interpreted as generic computer components) or (Claim 12) a computer readable medium (“CRM”) that implement the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that Claim 11 is not recited to be performed by any particular device. The computer components or CRM are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or components thereof. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims further recite the additional elements of (1) a first terminal having a display and sensors, (2) a second terminal having a display unit, (3) a storage unit having databases, (4) other devices, and (5) a network. The (1) first terminal having a display and sensors, (2) second terminal having a display unit, (3) a storage unit having databases, (4) other devices, and (5) a network represent locations from which data is received or to which data is outputted and merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, receiving information is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity e.g., data gathering (performed by receiving/transmitting/etc.) See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim further recites the additional element of (6) executing control of the terminals. The Examiner notes Para. 0055 of the Specification states the position of the sensor (terminal) is controlled by the doctor. Para. 0056 states the doctor adjusts the sensitivity. Para. 0013 states the doctor selects which of the sensors will be used. The doctor determines the control information and uses the processing apparatus as a tool to transmit the control information to the terminals. Executing control of the terminals equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of (1) first terminal having a display and sensors, (2) second terminal having a display unit, (3) a storage unit having databases, (4) other devices, and (5) a network were determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of (6) executing control of the terminals was determined to be “apply it.” This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 13-15 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim 2 merely describes the display unit, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 3 merely describes the one or more sensors, the control information, and the instruction information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 4 merely describes the terminal information, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 6 merely describe determining whether the biometric information is outside the predetermined range, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 5 further recites using a classifier generated by machine learning. This is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more.
Claims 7 and 8 merely describe the first terminal, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further recites a non-stress test measurement device with an ultrasound transducer, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claim 8 further recites measurement devices which are considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claim 9 merely describes receiving diagnostic information and at least one of biometric information, drug information, and medical records, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 10 merely describes a case of an initial online medical examination, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 13-15 merely describe transmitting the biometric information and receiving operation information, and displaying an image, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 13-15 further recite the additional element of a third terminal having a display unit, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of Claims 11 and 12, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the bases of rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-15, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
The claimed control is not a generic instruction to apply a result. The claim specifies what is controlled and why: the instruction information controls at least one of the selection, sensitivity, and position… This ordered combination provides a specific closed-loop control architecture between the information processing apparatus, the second terminal, and the wearable first terminal.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim specifies what and why but fails to mention who. As explained in the 101 rejection above, the Specification at Para. 0013, 0055, and 0056 describes the doctor controlling the terminals. Further the “ordered combination” analysis only applies to the additional elements of the claim. The Examiner submits that there is nothing unconventional about three processing devices communicating with one another.
The Examiner… characterizes the problem as merely a healthcare problem rather than a technological problem. However, the claimed problem is not simply the medical decision of whether a subject is abnormal. The claimed problem concerns how, in a remote examination system, biometric information… can be properly… evaluated… displayed… and… acquired. This is a problem arising in the operation of networked wearable sensing systems used for remote biometric acquisition…
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner summarized the problem as “difficulty obtaining biometric information during online medical examinations,” and did not claim it was “simply the medical decision of whether a subject is abnormal,” so it is unclear what the Applicant is arguing. The Applicant then described the problem as difficulty acquiring, evaluating, and displaying biometric information.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computer. The problem of difficulty acquiring, evaluating, and displaying biometric information during online medical examinations was not a problem caused by the computer, it is a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. Applicant’s identified problem is a healthcare problem, not a specific problem arising in the operation of networked wearable sensing systems used for remote biometric acquisition. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
…claim 1 is directed to a practical application that improves a technical field of remote biometric acquisition and wearable terminal control.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology. Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Applicant’s argument that the field of remote biometric acquisition and wearable terminal control is a technology and the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention. The claims are confined to a general-purpose computer and do not claim remote biometric acquisition and wearable terminal control. Moreover, the entire field of remote biometric acquisition and wearable terminal control is not reasonably understood to be a problem arising in technology, as it is instead a problem arising in healthcare. The claimed invention is using a computer as a tool and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of, to paraphrase, presenting an alert depending on biometric information. Finally, were Applicant’s line of reasoning was correct, the invention in Alice Corp. would have been subject matter eligible because it was an improvement to the technology of settlement risk mitigation.
The ordered combination of claim elements is not conventional data collection and display.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added).” Further, MPEP 2106.05(I) states: “As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original).” As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention.
In that regard, the additional elements of the claims do not provide significantly more based on this inquiry. Taking these in turn, whether the additional elements of the claim provide an improvement was analyzed/addressed in the 2A2 analysis. The technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer performing generic computer functions [see Spec. Para. 0084]) is recited at a high level of generality and has been found by the courts to be insufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Alice Corp.).
Finally, none of the additional elements of the claim were found to represent extra-solution activity and thus no well-understood, routine, conventional analysis is required. MPEP 2106.07(a) states “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.” This was not asserted. As such, when viewed either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
…claims 13 to 15… recite additional terminal-based display and control features…
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terminal-based display and control features merely recite the use of a conventional terminal to display information and receive user control. Such features do not impose a meaningful limitation on the underlying abstract idea. The terminal is used for its ordinary functions of displaying information and receiving user input.
Accordingly, the additional terminal-based display and control features do not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Arneson et al. (U.S. 2018/0173896) which discloses methods, systems, and apparatuses for interfacing data.
Kremen et al. (U.S. 2017/0316488) which discloses systems and methods for food management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm 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, Robert W Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
