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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 10 recite(s):
A user behavior proposal device comprising:
calculate an affinity with each of a plurality of behaviors of one user on the basis of at least one of a terminal log of the one user, user attributes, and a questionnaire result;
and
output a behavior with a high affinity as a recommended behavior to the one user
wherein the processing circuitry calculates the affinity for each of the plurality of behaviors of the user on the basis of an estimation model for estimating the affinity of the plurality of behaviors which is generated on the basis of a positive user who has adopted a behavior corresponding to a predetermined suggestion for the plurality of behaviors and a negative user who has not adopted the behavior corresponding to the predetermined suggestion,
wherein the estimation model is generated using at least one of training terminal logs of users having received the predetermined suggestion, user attributes, and questionnaire answer results of the users as explanatory variables and using information indicating whether the predetermined suggestion has been employed as an objective variable, and
wherein a positive user who has adopted a behavior corresponding to the suggestion for a user's behavior is determined when the user's behavior is determined to correspond to the suggestion in comparison with the user's past behavior, and a negative user who has not adopted the behavior corresponding to the suggestion for the behavior is determined when the user's behavior is determined not to correspond to the suggestion in comparison with the user's past behavior.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting ”device”, “storage unit”, “acquisition unit”, “affinity estimation unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing student’s answer in a questionnaire making a judgement whether a person has adopted certain suggestion or not.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people or performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “device”, “storage unit”, “acquisition unit”, “affinity estimation unit”
The “device”in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does 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 processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 127-128).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-8, 11-20 is/are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-4 are directed to the type output given to the user and the determination of the recommendation given to the user (an abstract idea); claims 7-8 are directed to the estimation of the type of notification given to the user (an abstract idea), claim 11-13 are directed to the step of comparing whether certain user has adopted or not adopted the suggestion (mental process); claims 14 and 19 directed to the provide message to the user (mental process), claim 16-18 are directed to comparing the positive and negative user behavior (mental process); claims 15 and 20 are directed to creation of a heatmap that represent user behavior (an insignificant extra solution activity). As such, the claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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 improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argued that the teaching of ex parte Dejardins should be applied in this particular case. However, teaching of ex parte Desjardins are not compatible with the current claim limitations. In Desjardins, the claims are specifically directed to type of parameters used in the training the machine learning model using an approximation of a posterior distribution over possible values of the plurality of parameters. The current claim limitation are not directed to the training of machine learning model. Instead, applicant’s own specification shows that the machine learning model relies on generic machine learning model (see paragraph 14 and 34). As such, it is unclear how the applicant intends to apply the teaching of ex parte Desjardins in this particular case.
The applicant also alleged that the current limitations provide an improvement of functioning of the computer. In order to show improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to a technical field, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. [see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)]. Here, the applicant argues that the limitation of claims 11-13, 16-18 are directed to a concrete algorithm that is used to create anchor point to compare behavior logs or claims 14 and 19 where the suggestion provided by the system enables subsequent analysis or claims 15 and 20 where the a heatmap is created for machine learning. However, these arguments fails to provide the necessary evidence from the specification that can be used to provide a showing of improvement of computer or an improvement to a technical field. Without the nexus to the applicant’s specification, any argument for a functioning of computer or an improvement to a technical field remains an allegation that fails to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
