CTNF 18/854,760 CTNF 83331 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10 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: an affinity calculating unit configured to 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 an output unit configured to output a behavior with a high affinity as a recommended behavior to the one user. 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 and providing advice to the user 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) 2-9 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 5-9 are directed to the estimation of the type of notification given to the user (an abstract idea). 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. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauley US 20210104173 Claim 1: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of a user behavior proposal device (see abstract) comprising: an affinity calculating unit configured to 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 (see paragraph 64 input from the user data), and a questionnaire result (see paragraph 70 questionnaire); and an output unit configured to output a behavior with a high affinity s a recommended behavior to the one user (see paragraph 70 recommendation module). Claim 2: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of wherein the output unit notifies the one user of the behavior with a high affinity and the affinity of the behavior as the recommended behavior (see paragraph 187). Claim 3: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of a risk contribution degree calculating unit configured to calculate a degree of risk contribution of each of the plurality of behaviors of the user on the basis of the terminal log of the user (see paragraph 212 calculating health risk); and a recommended behavior deriving unit configured to derive a recommended behavior of the user on the basis of the degree of risk contribution and the affinity (see paragraph 220), wherein the output unit outputs the recommended behavior to the user (see paragraph 223). Claim 4: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of wherein the affinity calculating unit calculates the affinity for each of the plurality of behaviors, wherein the risk contribution degree calculating unit calculates, the degree of risk contribution for each of the plurality of behaviors (see paragraph 157), and wherein the recommended behavior deriving unit derives the recommended behavior using the affinity and the degree of risk contribution (see paragraph 173) Claim 5: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of wherein the affinity calculating unit 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 (see paragraph 186) and a negative user who has not adopted the behavior corresponding to the predetermined suggestion (see paragraph 183). Claim 6: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of 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 (see paragraph 177) Claim 7: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of wherein a plurality of users are notified of a message including target values of the plurality of behaviors as the suggestion, and a positive user or a negative user is determined at the time of notification, and wherein the estimation model is generated on the basis of the determination result (see paragraph 188). Claim 8: The Pauley reference provide a teaching of wherein the target values are determined on the basis of a value obtained by statistically processing behaviors of each of the plurality of users (see paragraph 79). Claim 9: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of 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 (see paragraph 181), 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 (see paragraph 183) Claim 10: The Pauley reference provides a teaching of an estimation model generation device (see abstract) comprising: a storage unit (see paragraph 105) configured to store training information including at least one of training terminal logs of a plurality of users, user attributes (see paragraph 64 input from the user data),, and questionnaire results (see paragraph 70 questionnaire);; an acquisition unit configured to acquire a positive user who has adopted a behavior corresponding to a predetermined suggestion for a user's behavior and a negative user who has not adopted the behavior corresponding to the predetermined suggestion for each of the plurality of users on the basis of the training information (see paragraph 181); and an affinity estimation model generating unit configured to generate an estimation model for estimating an affinity with the behavior on the basis of the training information, the positive user, and the negative user (see paragraph 70 recommendation module). Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/854,760 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights