DETAILED ACTION
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 the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on March 19, 2026 for the application filed on September 4, 2024, is a national stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2023/008805 filed March 8, 2023, which claims priority to Japanese Application No. JP2022-035010 filed March 8, 2022. Claims 1 and 4 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Priority
The certified copy of the foreign priority application was submitted on September 4, 2024, and it is a non-English language JP application (JP2022-035010). A copy of the published PCT application was submitted on September 4, 2024, and it is a non-English language PCT application (PCT/JP2023/008805). When a claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner should review the certified copy to see that it contains no obvious formal defects and that it corresponds in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012. See MPEP 215(I).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome the rejections (e.g., a rejection based on NPL Ohmura published on October 24, 2022) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP 215 and 216.
Accordingly, the Office requires that English language translations of the associated non-English language foreign application and non-English language PCT application be filed, with the translations being that of the associated certified copies (of the foreign application and PCT application as filed) and submitted together with a statement that each translation of the associated certified copy is accurate.
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 and 4 – 10 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.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in MPEP 2016(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1 and 4 – 8 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., process); and claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., article of manufacture).
While each one of claims 1 and 4 – 10 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions on a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1 and 4 – 10 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1 and 4 – 10 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1 and 4 – 10 recite an abstract idea. (The Office will not determine that a claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One for the mere reason that claim further recites one or more additional elements beyond the judicial exception.)
Independent claims 1 and 9 – 10 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” subgrouping. Representative claim 1 recites the mental identified in bold as:
An information processing system comprising:
a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant;
a calculation unit that calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of inter beat interval (IBI) or a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state; and
a notification unit that outputs notification information for notifying a user of a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant;
wherein the notification information includes: first notification information for providing a notification to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant; and second notification information for providing a notification to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant,
wherein the notification unit outputs the first notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant: the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score, and
wherein the notification unit outputs the second notification information by comparing, with [the] threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score.
Claim 1 recites the combination of limitations identified in bold as “calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of inter beat interval (IBI) or a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state,” “a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant,” “comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant: the IBI or the heart rate; and the inf ant state score,” and “comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score.” This combination represents an abstract idea of determining childcare behavior based on the comparison of sensor information to a threshold and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in claim 1 itself that forecloses it from being performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. The sensors are computer components merely used as a tool. Thus, the activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 – 10 are directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 4 – 8 are directed to the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding claims 4 – 8, the limitations in bold identified as “the notification information further includes third notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to lay the infant down to sleep, and the notification unit that outputs the third notification information on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of a length of time elapsed since output of the second notification information, the heart rate information, and the infant state score” in claim 4, “the notification information further includes fourth notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to check a health condition of the infant, and the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value” in claim 5, “the notification unit outputs the notification information with reference to information acquired from an assistance model, and the assistance model is a model that: receives an input of at least one selected from the group consisting of the elapsed time, the heat rate information, and the infant state score; and outputs a success rate of a childcare behavior of the user based on the notification information” in claim 6, “the notification unit refers to information acquired from the assistance model that has been modified on the basis of: information indicating success or failure of the childcare behavior based on the notification information; and at least one selected from the group consisting of the length of time elapsed before output of the notification information, the heart rate information, and the infant state score” in claim 7, and “the sensor includes a sensor that detects at least one selected from the group consisting of a pulse wave of the infant, a body motion thereof, and vocalization thereof” in claim 8 defines the step of determining a real time need for parent intervention based on the infant’s condition and thus may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, claims 4 – 8 recite an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 4 – 8 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 9 – 10 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 1 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as:
An information processing system comprising:
a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant;
a calculation unit that calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of inter beat interval (IBI) or a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state; and
a notification unit that outputs notification information for notifying a user of a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant;
wherein the notification information includes: first notification information for providing a notification to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant; and second notification information for providing a notification to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant,
wherein the notification unit outputs the first notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant: the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score, and
wherein the notification unit outputs the second notification information by comparing, with [the] threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as “an information processing system,” “a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant,” “a calculation unit,” “a notification unit that outputs notification information,” “the notification information includes: first notification information for providing a notification to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant; and second notification information for providing a notification to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant,” “the notification unit outputs the first notification information,” and “the notification unit outputs the second notification information.” Claim 10 further recites the limitation of “a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium,” “a program,” and “a computer.”
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the claim as a whole does not amount to a particular treatment or prophylaxis, but rather amounts to the activity of determining a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant based on a comparison of sensor information to a threshold. This activity is recited at a high level of generality, with no limitation positively reciting the activity of treatment or intervention. The claim as a whole amounts to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea of determining childcare behavior in a generic way, with no limitation positively reciting the activity of treatment or intervention.. Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), each claim as a whole (including the additional limitations) does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field, but rather merely provides an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e., determining a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant based on a comparison of sensor information to a threshold). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). The claim as a whole only recites the idea of a desired outcome (i.e., determining a childcare behavior). The claim as a whole does not provide a particular solution, including at least details on: how the infant state score is calculated; how the comparison step results in outputting the first notification information (i.e., to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant); and how the comparison step results in outputting the second notification information (i.e., to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant). The claim as a whole invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the existing process of determining childcare behavior. Each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e., determining childcare behavior) on generic computer components (i.e., the information processing system, the sensor information acquisition unit, the sensor, the calculation unit, the notification unit, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, a program, and a computer). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1 and 9 – 10 as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, it is determined that each claim as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the steps of “a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant,” “the notification unit outputs the first notification information,” and “the notification unit outputs the second notification information” are determined to not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The extra-solution activity of acquiring sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant represents the well-known pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering because it is incidental to the primary process of determining childcare behavior and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The extra-solution activities of outputting the first notification information and outputting the second notification information (i.e., notifying the user of childcare behavior to be performed) represents the well-known post-solution activity of data outputting because it is incidental to the primary process of determining the childcare behavior and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of Claims 1 and 9 – 10 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations of the information processing system, the sensor information acquisition unit, the sensor, the calculation unit, the notification unit, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, a program, and a computer do no more than link the abstract ideas (i.e., the mental process of determining the real time need for parent intervention) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the information processing system. Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that Claims 1 and 9 – 10 do not have one or more additional limitations, individually or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 4 – 8 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements from an associated one of independent Claims 1 and 9 – 10 and are therefore directed to one or more abstract ideas for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. With further regard to claims 4 – 8, these claims further recite additional limitations, and these additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding claims 4 – 8, none of the claims as a whole represents a particular treatment or prophylaxis. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a). The limitations of “the assistance model is a model that: receives an input of at least one selected from the group consisting of the elapsed time, the heat rate information, and the infant state score” in claim 6, and “the sensor includes a sensor that detects at least one selected from the group consisting of a pulse wave of the infant, a body motion thereof, and vocalization thereof” in claim 8 are determined to not add more than extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e., the well-known pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering because it is incidental to the primary process of determining the real time need for parent intervention and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.). See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of “the notification unit that outputs the third notification information on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of a length of time elapsed since output of the second notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” in claim 4, “the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value” in claim 5, “the notification unit outputs the notification information with reference to information acquired from an assistance model, and the assistance model is a model that … outputs a success rate of a childcare behavior of the user based on the notification information” in claim 6, and “the notification unit refers to information acquired from the assistance model that has been modified on the basis of: information indicating success or failure of the childcare behavior based on the notification information; and at least one selected from the group consisting of the length of time elapsed before output of the notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” in claim 7 are determined to not add more than extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e., the well-known post-solution activity of data outputting because it is incidental to the primary process of determining childcare behavior and thus is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional limitations are determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, i.e., the information processing system. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that claims 4 – 8 do not have one or more additional limitations, individually or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 9 – 10, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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 limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities of mere necessary data gathering and data outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g). Evidence that performing repetitive calculations and retrieving information are well-understood, routine and conventional activities provided by MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Evidence that determining a real time need for parent intervention based on the infant’s condition is well-understood, routine and conventional activity provided by NPL Ohmura.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1 and 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Dependent claims 4 – 8, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 4 – 8 are all encompassed by the abstract idea grouping of mental processes.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1 and 4 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Panneer Selvam (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0157143 A1) in view of Farringdon (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0161707 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 – 10, Panneer Selvam teaches the limitations of representative claim 1 identified in bold as:
An information processing system (Abstract of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an information processing system” reads on the Baby Vitals Monitor in Panneer Selvam (Abstract) utilizing a smart wearable for measuring the biometrics of a child.) comprising:
a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant (Paragraph [0038] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a sensor information acquisition unit that acquires sensor information from a sensor that detects a state of an infant” reads on the sensors in Panneer Selvam (Paragraph [0038]) of the smartwatch including accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, optical sensors, … heart rate, … microphones... In one embodiment, heart rate, … ECG, and step count may be valuable vitals captured, analyzed, processed, and communicated by the smartwatch. For example, parameters extracted by an optical sensor (e.g., emitter, receiver, etc.) may include, but are not limited to … heart rate variability (HRV).);
a calculation unit that calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of inter beat interval (IBI) or a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state (Paragraphs [0105], [0152], [0163], and [0164] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a calculation unit that calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of heart rate information related to a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0105], [0152], [0163], and [0164]) having a logic engine that utilizes an algorithm and mathematical and statistical processing to determine biometric data. The smartwatch determines (based on the biometric data) a child’s heart rate information, the child’s crying, the child’s other different “emotions, status, conditions, experiences, and so forth,” and the child’s sleeping activity.);
a notification unit that outputs notification information for notifying a user of a childcare behavior to be performed to promote stopping of crying of the infant or sleep of the infant (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a notification unit that outputs notification information for notifying a user” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) that outputs information for notifying a user/parent/guardian of potential responses (i.e., childcare behavior) including treatment, actions, or efforts that were successful in helping the child stop crying, feel comforted, feel better, recover, or so forth.);
wherein the notification information includes: first notification information for providing a notification to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant; and second notification information for providing a notification to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification information includes: first notification information for providing a notification to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant” reads on the information in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) regarding potential responses and communicated by the smartwatch, with the potential response including placing the child down for a nap (i.e., stopping of holding and walking the infant). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification information includes: … second notification information for providing a notification to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant” reads on the information in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) regarding potential responses and communicated by the smartwatch, with the potential response including holding and rocking the child (i.e., in a rocking chair).),
wherein the notification unit outputs the first notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification unit outputs the first notification information” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) communicating information regarding potential responses, with the potential response including placing the child down for a nap (i.e., stopping of holding and walking the infant). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” reads on the activity in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167]) of determining, by the trigger module, that the heart rate of the child is below a designated threshold.), and
wherein the notification unit outputs the second notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification unit outputs the second notification information” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) communicating information regarding potential responses, with the potential response including holding and rocking the child (i.e., in a rocking chair). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” reads on the activity in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167]) of determining, by the trigger module, that the heart rate of the child is above a designated threshold.),
a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing system according to claim 1, the one or more programs causing the computer to function as each of the foregoing units (This limitation is only in claim 10.) (Paragraphs [0094], [0095], and [0176] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing system” reads on the memory or machine-readable medium in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0094], [0095], and [0176]) storing the program for causing the home computer to function as the information processing system of claim 1.).
Panneer Selvam does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Farringdon teaches the limitations identified in bold as “a calculation unit that calculates, on a basis of the sensor information, at least one selected from the group consisting of inter beat interval (IBI) or a heart rate of the infant and an infant state score indicating any one of states of the infant from a wailing state to a sleep state,” “the notification unit outputs the first notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score,” and “the notification unit outputs the second notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” (Paragraph [0135] of Farringdon. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “inter beat interval (IBI)” and “the IBI” reads on the inter-beat intervals in Farringdon (Paragraph [0135]) calculated based on the ECG signal generated by the electrodes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Panneer Selvam to implement the inter-beat intervals, as taught by Farringdon (Paragraph [0135]), in order to combine the continuous monitoring of the heart related parameters with a device which can detect, identify and record the physical activities of the wearer (e.g., crying, sleeping, etc.) and correlate the same to the heart related parameters (Paragraph [0023] of Farringdon).
Regarding claim 4, Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the notification information further includes third notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to lay the infant down to sleep, and the notification unit that outputs the third notification information on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the second notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification information further includes third notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to lay the infant down to sleep” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) communicating information regarding potential responses, with the potential response including placing the child down for a nap. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification unit that outputs the third notification information on the basis of at least one selected from the group consisting of: a length of time elapsed since output of the second notification information; the IBI or the heart rate; and the infant state score” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0116], [0118] [0161], [0165], and [0167]) that communicated the potential response of placing the child down for a nap, in response to the trigger module determining that the heart rate of the child is below a designated threshold. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the IBI” reads on the inter-beat intervals in Farringdon (Paragraph [0135]) calculated based on the ECG signal generated by the electrodes.).
Regarding claim 6, Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the notification unit outputs the notification information with reference to information acquired from an assistance model, and the assistance model is a model that: receives an input of at least one selected from the group consisting of the elapsed time, the IBI or the heart rate, and the infant state score; and outputs a success rate of a childcare behavior of the user based on the notification information” (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification unit outputs the notification information with reference to information acquired from an assistance model, and the assistance model is a model that: receives an input of at least one selected from the group consisting of the elapsed time, the heat rate information, and the infant state score; and outputs a success rate of a childcare behavior of the user based on the notification information” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) that outputs successful responses with reference to information acquired from the machine learning module, and the machine learning module receives heart rate variability and other biometric data and outputs a successful responses for the associated category or type of crying based on the biometrics, sensors, or other feedback from associated devices. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the IBI” reads on the inter-beat intervals in Farringdon (Paragraph [0135]) calculated based on the ECG signal generated by the electrodes.).
Regarding claim 7, Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 6 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the notification unit refers to information acquired from the assistance model that has been modified on the basis of: information indicating success or failure of the childcare behavior based on the notification information; and at least one selected from the group consisting of the length of time elapsed before output of the notification information, the IBI or the heart rate, and the infant state score” (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification unit refers to information acquired from the assistance model that has been modified on the basis of: information indicating success or failure of the childcare behavior based on the notification information; and at least one selected from the group consisting of the length of time elapsed before output of the notification information, the heart rate information, and the infant state score” reads on the smartwatch in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0161], [0165], and [0167]) referring to successful responses and associated categories of crying acquired from the machine learning module that has been modified on the basis of feedback (i.e., which responses are successes or failures) from a user caring for or assigned to the child; and heart rate variability and other biometric data for the associated category or type of crying based on the biometrics, sensors, or other feedback from associated devices. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the IBI” reads on the inter-beat intervals in Farringdon (Paragraph [0135]) calculated based on the ECG signal generated by the electrodes.).
Regarding claim 8, Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the sensor includes a sensor that detects at least one selected from the group consisting of a pulse wave of the infant, a body motion thereof, and vocalization thereof” (Paragraph [0038] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the sensor includes a sensor that detects at least one selected from the group consisting of a pulse wave of the infant, a body motion thereof, and vocalization thereof” reads on the sensors in Panneer Selvam (Paragraph [0038]) of the smartwatch including optical sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, heart rate sensors, microphones, and ECG sensor technology. For example, parameters extracted by an optical sensor (e.g., emitter, receiver, etc.) may include, but are not limited to … heart rate variability (HRV).).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1, and further in view of NPL Esposito.
Regarding claim 5, Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the notification information further includes fourth notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to check a health condition of the infant, and the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value” (Paragraphs [0095], [0165], and [0167] of Panneer Selvam. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the notification information further includes fourth notification information for providing a notification …, and the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information” reads on the communication in Panneer Selvam (Paragraphs [0095], [0165], and [0167]) to the user/parent/guardian including information for providing a notification based on heart rate variability and other biometric data.
Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon and applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but NPL Esposito teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the notification information further includes fourth notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to check a health condition of the infant, and the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value” (The broadest reasonable interpretation of “prompt the user to check a health condition of the infant … in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value” reads on the activity in NPL Esposito (Third Paragraph in Second Column on Page 744) of prompting evaluation of the autonomic functions and sensory integrations of neurological disorders in the infant (i.e., for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)), where such prompting occurs when crying resumes after using the effective “carrying” approach for the duration of 20 seconds (Figure 1B on Page 740 of NPL Esposito).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data mining and computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Panneer Selvam as modified by Farringdon such that the notification information further includes fourth notification information for providing a notification to prompt the user to check a health condition of the infant, and the notification unit outputs the fourth notification information in a case where a total time spent on the holding and walking exceeds a threshold value, as taught by NPL Esposito (Fourth Paragraph in Second Column on Page 739, First Paragraph in First Column on Page 740, and Second Paragraph in Second Column on Page 744), in order to provide cry reduction and promote awareness of potential underlying causes of the crying thereby reducing frustration and the associated risk of child abuse (Third Paragraph in Second Column on Page 744 of NPL Esposito).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Last Paragraph on Page 7 to First Paragraph on Page 8 of the Amendment filed March 19, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 4 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In the Amendment (Last Paragraph on Page 7 to First Paragraph on Page 8), Applicant argued:
Claim 1 is now amended to incorporate more specific details reflected in Figs. 2, 9, and 10 in accordance with the Examiner's suggestion recited in the Interview Summary. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites a concrete process in which at least one selected from the group consisting of a length of time elapsed, IBI or heart rate, and an infant state score is compared with a threshold. Amended claim 1 requires that the notification unit outputs first notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of a length of time elapsed since the user has started holding the infant and walking with the infant, the IBI or the heart rate, and the infant state score, and that the notification unit outputs second notification information by comparing, with a threshold, at least one selected from the group consisting of a length of time elapsed since output of the first notification information, the IBI or the heart rate, and the infant state score. In this manner, amended claim 1 provides stepwise output of notification information based on results of the threshold comparisons. These amendments correspond to the physiological trend analysis and decision logic shown in Figs. 2, 9, and 10. Accordingly, amended claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, amended claim 1 satisfies the patent eligibility requirement.
The Office respectfully disagrees. The Interview Summary provided the following comment regarding the discussion of 35 U.S.C. 101:
Discussed the proposed amendment and argument over the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101. The Office determined that the proposed amendment to claim 1 would not provide an improvement to technology or a technical field and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. No agreement was reached. Applicant's Attorney indicated that a formal response with a claim amendment will be filed for the Examiner's consideration.
As described in the body of the present Final Office Action, amended claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As but one example, the claim as a whole only recites the idea of a desired outcome (i.e., determining a childcare behavior). The claim as a whole does not provide a particular solution, including at least details on: how the infant state score is calculated; how the comparison step results in outputting the first notification information (i.e., to prompt stopping of holding the infant and walking with the infant); and how the comparison step results in outputting the second notification information (i.e., to prompt start of holding the infant and sitting with the infant). The claim as a whole invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the existing process of determining childcare behavior. Each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e., determining childcare behavior) on generic computer components (i.e., the information processing system, the sensor information acquisition unit, the sensor, the calculation unit, the notification unit, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, a program, and a computer).
Applicant's arguments (Second Paragraph on Page 8 to Second Paragraph on Page 9 of the Amendment filed March 19, 2026) regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 4 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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 on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights