CTNF 18/854,580 CTNF 91453 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-8 are pending and are considered in this Non-Final Office action. Specification The amendment to the Specification made on 10/7/2024 has been entered. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the typographical error in bold, “ estimtating a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state.” Appropriate correction is required. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 07-04 AIA 07-04-01 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed system in claims 1-6; the work support method in claim 7 and the non-transitory computer readable medium in claim 8 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-8. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-8, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements recited in bold ): Claim 1: A work support system comprising: a user terminal used by a user engaged in work; and a work support control device capable of performing information communication with the user terminal, wherein the user terminal includes a report processing unit configured t o transmit, to the work support control device, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work, and the work support control device includes: a reception processing unit configured to receive the work report information transmitted from the user terminal ; an estimation processing unit that obtains configured to obtain a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information and estimate a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state ; and a notification processing unit that generates configured to generate work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration, and transmit the generated work support information to the user terminal. Claim 7: A work support method executed by a work support system including a user terminal used by a user engaged in work and a work support control device capable of performing information communication with the user terminal, the work support method comprising: transmitting, by the user terminal, to the work support control device, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work; receiving, by the work support control device, the work report information transmitted from the user terminal; obtaining, by the work support control device , a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information and estimtating a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state; and generating, by the work support control device , work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration, and transmitting the generated work support information to the user terminal. Claim 8: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, wherein execution of the program causes a processor to perform operations of claim 7. The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations ); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to a process of evaluating the behavior of a worker by observing work information to determine a degree of concentration of a worker. According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., “ a user terminal used by a user engaged in work; and a work support control device capable of performing information communication with the user terminal, wherein the user terminal includes a report processing unit configured t o transmit, to the work support control device, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work, and the work support control device includes: a reception processing unit configured to receive the work report information transmitted from the user terminal ; an estimation processing unit that obtains configured to obtain a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information;” “ a work support system including a user terminal used by a user engaged in work and a work support control device capable of performing information communication with the user terminal, the work support method comprising: transmitting, by the user terminal, to the work support control device, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work; receiving, by the work support control device, the work report information transmitted from the user terminal; obtaining, by the work support control device , a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information ;” “ transmitting the generated work support information to the user terminal.” “ transmitting the generated work support information to the user terminal.” etc.); processing data (e.g., “ estimate a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state ;” “ estimtating a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state; “a notification processing unit that generates configured to generate work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration,” and “ generating, by the work support control device , work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration, ” etc.); storing data; displaying data and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims. In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for evaluating a degree oof concentration of a worker) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, ¶0015-0020, “The work support system according to the one embodiment includes a work support control device SV, and enables information communication via a network NW between the work support control device SV and user terminals UT1 to UTN used by a plurality of users engaged in work… The user terminal UT includes, for example, a personal computer used by a user for work. Note that, as the user terminal UT, a tablet-type terminal, a smartphone, or the like may also be used. The user terminal UT includes a control unit lA using a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU). Furthermore, a storage unit including a program storage unit 2A and a data storage unit 3A, an input/output interface (hereinafter, an interface is referred to as an I/F) unit 4A, and a communication I/F unit 5A are connected to the control unit 1A via a bus 6A.” As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and transmits work support information) to be well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions. Dependent claims 2-6 further narrow the abstract idea by further describing how work support information is transmitted and received and how a degree of concentration is estimated from the work support information. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but do not recite additional elements that practically apply the abstract idea or provide ‘something more’. The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thapliyal et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication, US 2017/0169382, hereinafter referred to as Thapliyal ) in view of Gimenez et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication, US 2017/0039877, hereinafter referred to as Gimenez ) . As per Claim 1, Thapliyal discloses a work support system comprising: a user terminal used by a user engaged in work (Thapliyal: Fig. 5 and ¶0070-0072: A user engages with a task on the computer in the user’s personal workspace.) ; …wherein the user terminal includes a report processing unit configured to transmit, to the work support control device, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work (Thapliyal: See ¶0053 and example in claim 1 where tasks completed by the user are received according to allocated time slots. See Fig. 5 and embodiment 510 for a user’s terminal. See Fig. 1 for processing units.) , and the work support control device includes: a reception processing unit configured to receive the work report information transmitted from the user terminal (Thapliyal: ¶0043-0044: User focus data is received through the graphical user interface data that details a user’s engagement of tasks they are currently working on and the associated focus concentration and time periods. See Fig. 1 for processing units.) ; an estimation processing unit configured to obtain a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information and estimates a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state (Thapliyal: ¶0043-0046: Historic focus data is collected according to tasked work and the associated time intervals the tasked work was performed. See ¶0046 where a change of state occurs and it is estimated that the user changed from a high level focus at 8AM-10AM to low level focus at 10AM-2PM according to their scheduled work. See Fig. 1 for processing units.) ; and a notification processing unit configured to generate work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration, and transmit the generated work support information to the user terminal (Thapliyal: ¶0089-0090: Work support information, such as break alerts, may be generated according to a dynamically determination of a change in a user’s focus level. Break alerts a transmitted to the graphical user interface of the user’s terminal. See Applicant’s Specification, ¶0069, where work support information is identified as a message encouraging a break. See Fig. 1 for processing units.). Thapliyal does not explicitly disclose; however, Gimenez discloses a work support control device capable of performing information communication with the user terminal, wherein the user terminal includes a report processing unit configured to transmit, to the work support control device…and the work support control device includes: (Gimenez: See Figs. 2-3 and ¶0054-0061: A computing environment uses a network to communicate between local consumer computing devices and the computerized device. See ¶0056-0059 of the layers in the work support device communicating with the consumer devices. See ¶0088 for an example of the user’s interaction with the device is communicated to update an analysis of attention estimation for a specific time interval.) comprising: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thapliyal with Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of analyzing a user’s focus and attention, and because incorporating Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels in Thapliyal would have served Thapliyal's pursuit of managing user’s tasks based on an identified level of focus through the communication of resource information over a network (See Thapliyal, Abstract and Fig. 5); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitations already rejected by claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies. See ¶0098 for a computer readable storage medium. As per Claim 2, Thapliyal in view of Gimenez discloses a… device capable of performing information communication with a user terminal used by a user engaged in work, the… device comprising: a first processing unit c onfigured to receive, from the user terminal, work report information input at a time interval recognized by the user as a fixed time during work (Thapliyal: See ¶0047 and 0051 where a calendar represented of a fixed regular working day identifies various time intervals where work tasks are allocated. See processing units in Fig. 1.) ; a second processing unit configured to obtain a change state of the time interval on a basis of the received work report information and estimate a degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of the change state (Thapliyal: ¶0043-0046: Historic focus data is collected according to tasked work and the associated time intervals the tasked work was performed. See ¶0046 where a change of state occurs and it is estimated that the user changed from a high level focus at 8AM-10AM to low level focus at 10AM-2PM according to their scheduled work. See processing units in Fig. 1.) ; and a third processing unit configured to generate work support information for the user according to the estimated degree of concentration, and transmits the generated work support information to the user terminal (Thapliyal: ¶0089-0090: Work support information, such as break alerts, may be generated according to a dynamically determination of a change in a user’s focus level in the allocated work time interval. Break alerts a transmitted to the graphical user interface of the user’s terminal. See processing units in Fig. 1.). Thapliyal does not explicitly disclose; however, Gimenez discloses: a work support control device capable of performing information communication with a user terminal used by a user engaged in work, the work support control device (Gimenez: See Figs. 2-3 and ¶0054-0061: A computing environment uses a network to communicate between local consumer computing devices and the computerized device. See ¶0056-0059 of the layers in the work support device communicating with the consumer devices. ) comprising: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thapliyal with Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of analyzing a user’s focus and attention, and because incorporating Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels in Thapliyal would have served Thapliyal's pursuit of managing user’s tasks based on an identified level of focus through the communication of resource information over a network (See Thapliyal, Abstract and Fig. 5); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 3, Thapliyal in view of Gimenez discloses the… device according to claim 2, wherein, each time the work report information is received, the second processing unit is configured to calculate the latest time interval on a basis of a reception timing of the work report information, and estimate the degree of concentration of the user on the work on a basis of a change in the latest time interval with respect to an average value of a plurality of the time intervals calculated in past (Thapliyal: ¶0088-0090: Focus data calculated over preceding time periods is indicating by an average amount of time period before a user’s degree of focus changes (i.e. from high focus level to low level focus). See processing units in Fig. 1.) . Thapliyal does not explicitly disclose; however, Gimenez discloses: a work support control device (Gimenez: See Figs. 2-3 and ¶0054-0061: A computing environment uses a network to communicate between local consumer computing devices and the computerized device. See ¶0056-0059 of the layers in the work support device communicating with the consumer devices.) comprising: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thapliyal with Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of analyzing a user’s focus and attention, and because incorporating Gimenez’s computerized environment for analyzing user’s attention levels in Thapliyal would have served Thapliyal's pursuit of managing user’s tasks based on an identified level of focus through the communication of resource information over a network (See Thapliyal, Abstract and Fig. 5); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 4, Thapliyal in view of Gimenez discloses the work support control device according to claim 3. However, Thapliyal does not explicitly disclose; however, Gimenez discloses wherein the second processing unit is configured to estimate that the degree of concentration is high in a case where the latest time interval is longer than the average value of the time intervals by a first value or more, and estimate that the degree of concentration has decreased in a case where the latest time interval is shorter than the average value of the time intervals by a second value or more (Gimenez: ¶0076: In the automated estimation of the user’s attention level as a function of a time interval, a baseline average is computed. See ¶0081-0082 where the user’s attention level [ degree of concentration ] is compared to the baseline respective to the effective time interval to determine if it’s high (i.e. above the average baseline) or low (i.e. below the average baseline).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Thapliyal with Gimenez’s estimation of user attention levels according to a specific work time interval because the references are analogous/compatible, since each is directed toward features of analyzing a user’s focus and attention, and because incorporating Gimenez’s estimation of user attention levels according to a specific work time interval in Thapliyal would have served Thapliyal's pursuit of managing user’s tasks based on an identified level of focus (See Thapliyal, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claim 5, Thapliyal in view of Gimenez discloses the work support control device according to claim 4, wherein the third processing unit is configured to transmit the work support information to the user terminal at a time of estimation in a case where the degree of concentration is estimated to have decreased, and postpone transmission of the work support information to the user terminal in a case where the degree of concentration is estimated to be high (Thapliyal: ¶0089-0090: Work support information, such as break alerts, may be generated according to a dynamically determination of a change in a user’s focus level in the allocated work time interval. Break alerts a transmitted to the graphical user interface of the user’s terminal. Examiner notes that the dynamic transmission of break time alerts allows this work support information to be transmitted in real-time. Therefore, it is transmitted when the degree of concentration is estimated to be low and it is not transmitted when the degree of concentration is high. See processing units in Fig. 1.). As per Claim 6, Thapliyal in view of Gimenez discloses the work support control device according to claim 2, wherein the third processing unit includes information for encouraging a break in the work support information, and is configured to generate information indicating work support contents corresponding to a progress status of the work on a basis of the work report information, and includes the generated information indicating the work support contents in the work support information (Thapliyal: ¶0089-0090: Work support information, such as break alerts, may be generated according to a dynamically determination of a change in a user’s focus level in the allocated work time interval. Break alerts a transmitted to the graphical user interface of the user’s terminal. See ¶0094-0095, where at the detected end of a user’s high focus level, a progress alert regarding the completion of task may be transmitted. See processing units in Fig. 1.) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caligor (US 2012/0239451): A software solution for managing, sorting and ranking lists of tasks and integrating task and time management, such that tasks can be automatically or manually assigned to specified time blocks. Users can monitor the relationship between volume of tasks and available time in which to complete them. The solution and method can be applied to individual task lists as well as to the management of time across multiple projects and can be employed either by individuals or by collaborative groups. The solution and method employ multiple filters, sorts and handling rules to embody users' personal planning preferences. It can be used to manage task lists both with and without employing a scheduling component. The solution can interoperate with existing computer- and web-based calendar software and can use third-party calendar clients to display its output and to accept input from users. Wisbey et al. (US 2023/0329609): Systems and methods for monitoring and assessing cognitive performance are described, based on physiological data captured from one or more sensors in a user's wearable device while the user performs a task. A determination of a current level of cognitive fatigue of the user may be made based on the physiological data, and at least one recovery recommendation delivered to the user based on the current level of cognitive fatigue in order to reduce cognitive fatigue. Bach et al. (US 2020/0008725): To identify physiological states that are predictive of a person's performance, a system provides physiological and behavioral interfaces and a data processing pipeline. Physiological sensors generate physiological data about the person while performing a task. The behavioral interface generates performance data about the person while performing the task. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F. 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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. /ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/854,580 Page 15 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights