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 29 December 2025, the following occurred:
Claims 1-12 were amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 17 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “a biometric information DB,” is objected to because the first instance of an abbreviation should be spelled out for clarity, i.e., a biometric information database (DB).” Claims 11 and 12 are objected to for the same reasons.
In claim 4, line 2, “at least one of a number of sensors,” should read “at least one of the one or more sensors.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-12 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claim 1. In particular, the cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of:
a communication unit for communicating with other devices including the second terminal via a network; and
a processor coupled to a storage unit in which a biometric information DB and a terminal information DB are provided,
wherein the processor is configured to cause the information processing apparatus to:
acquire the biometric information and terminal information including a type of the first terminal, and store the biometric information and the terminal information in the biometric information DB and the terminal information DB, respectively;
associate the biometric information with a location of a designated sensor among the one or more sensors;
execute control on a display unit provided in the second terminal 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;
determine whether the biometric information for the location of the designated sensor is abnormal or not, based on at least one of information accumulated in the biometric information DB and the terminal information DB and information indicated a predetermined range stored in the storage unit;
execute control to present, on the second terminal or further each of the other devices, the biometric information including a presentation of the alert or without the presentation of the alert, depending on the determining, together with information corresponding to the location of the designated sensor;
receive control information for the first terminal from the second terminal; and
execute control to send instruction information for controlling the first terminal to the first terminal based on the control information,
wherein the instruction information includes information for controlling at least one of the selection, sensitivity, and position where the designated sensor is worn by the subject to acquire more appropriate biometric information.
The closest prior art Ginestet et al. (U.S. 2015/0374328) teaches an information processing apparatus to control whether to present an alert to a second terminal different from a first terminal, depending on biometric information of a subject obtained by one or more sensors provided in the first terminal worn by the subject, the information processing apparatus comprising: a communication unit for communicating with other devices including the second terminal via a network; and a processor coupled to a storage unit. However, Ginestet fails to teach a storage unit in which a biometric information DB and a terminal information DB are provided.
The prior art Komine et al. (U.S. 2022/0218287) teaches a storage unit in which a biometric information DB and a terminal information DB are provided. However, Komine fails to teach executing control on a display unit provided in the second terminal to display information to be checked, including at least one of the biometric information and an image showing the location of the designated sensor.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claims 11 and 12 recite, “the storage unit.” Antecedent basis is only provided for, “storage unit,” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these claims. For examination purposes, claims 11 and 12 will be read as, “based on at least one of information accumulated in the biometric information DB and the terminal information DB and information indicating a predetermined range stored in a storage unit.”
Claims 11 and 12 recite, “the other devices.” Antecedent basis is only provided for, “other devices,” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these claims. For examination purposes, claims 11 and 12 will be read as, “on the second terminal or other devices.”
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 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 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 instruction information for controlling at least one of the selection, sensitivity, and position where the designated sensor is worn by the subject to acquire more appropriate biometric information, 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 and 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 a (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 is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components) such that it amounts 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. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection(s) to Claims 3, 8, 9, and 11, the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous basis/bases of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-12, 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:
With reference to amended claim 1…, especially features (E) to (K), the feature of the present invention contributes to solving the problems described in paragraph [0004] of the present specification…
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 obtaining biometric information during online medical examinations was not a problem cause by the computer, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a healthcare problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
…the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. As explained in MPEP §2106.04(d), a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application when it applies the idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the idea, such as by improving technology or controlling a physical system.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Causing data to be displayed on a remote computer is not an improvement to the remote computer within the context of “improvement to another technology.” It represents an “apply it” step, i.e., applying the results of the abstraction. Further, the mere display of data has been held to not provide a practical application. See EPG v. Alstom, 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016) slip op. at 9-10 (stating “the claims’ invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent- eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a ‘non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,’ but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components’ and display devices.)
…the claims recite a technological improvement to the field of remote medical examination systems.
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 medical examination systems 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 medical examination systems. Moreover, the entire field of remote medical examination systems 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, where 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.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Regarding the prior art rejection of Claims 1-12, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and withdraws the prior art rejection.
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:
Braun et al. (U.S. 2017/0251933) which discloses wearable devices for sensing, displaying, and communicating data associated with a user.
Joao et al. (U.S. 2025/0391579) which discloses an apparatus and method for providing healthcare services remotely or virtually with or using an electronic healthcare record and/or a communication network.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 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
Prosecution Insights