DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to amendment and remarks dated 4/23/26. Claims 1-15 have been amended and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 5/7/2026 have been acknowledged and considered.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 are drawn to an information processing apparatus for providing information on an indicator, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 14 is drawn to a method for an information processing method for providing information on an indicator which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 15 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium for processing information for providing an indicator, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
acquire state information on a state of a user;
set an indicator indicating a range of change in a body shape achievable by the user under the user’s current situation, based on the acquired state information and
provide information on the set indicator to the user.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to Certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The limitations of acquiring information; setting an indicator indicating a range of change in a body shape and providing information on the indicator as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is directed to collecting user “state information,” setting an “indicator” and presenting it to the user which is a concept related to tracking or filtering information. Tracking information or filtering content has been found to be an abstract idea and a method of organizing human behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). This is directed to an abstract idea of determining a personalized recommendation regarding attainable body-shape outcomes (i.e., collecting information, analyzing it, and presenting a result), thus falling into one category of abstract idea. That is other than reciting “information processing apparatus” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from describing concepts related to receiving and organizing health data between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts related to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to:
acquire state information on a state of a user;
set an indicator indicating a range of change in a body shape achievable by the user under the user’s current situation, based on the acquired state information and
provide information on the set indicator to the user.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitations performing the functions by the processing apparatus amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph [0087] of the present Specification.
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of performing the functions by the processor merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer,
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
As per claims 14 and 15, the claim teaches limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claims 14 and 15 further teach a method and non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. These limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium as generally recited, amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 14 and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
Dependent claims 2-3, and 5-9 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract).
In relation to claims 4, and 10-13 these claims specify acquiring information; setting an indicator and providing information for the indicator which is a certain method of organizing human activity, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nusbaum (8,690,578) in view of Abujbara (20180004914).
As per claim 1, Nusbaum teaches an information processing apparatus comprising (Nusbaum, Col. 2, lines 45-67; Col. 3, lines 18-23 teaches a computerized weight-management system including one or more processors configured to receive user information, perform individualized weight-management processing, and provide personalized recommendations to a user):
a processor configured to:
acquire state information on a state of a user (Nusbaum Col. 28, lines 17-23 teaches acquiring user state information including user profile information such as age, sex, height, weight, wrist size, waist size, body measurements, target weight, and other physiological information used for individualized weight-management processing);
set an indicator (Nusbaum; Col. 29, lines 43-62 teaches determining individualized weight-management targets based upon the acquired user information, including calculating an ideal weight and determining reasonable incremental weight-loss objectives toward that target over an appropriate period of time)
and provide information on the set indicator to the user (Nusbaum Col. 3, lines 18-23 teaches presenting the individualized recommendations to the user through the user interface of the computerized weight-management system).
Nusbaum does not expressly disclose determining the indicator as a range of change in a body shape achievable by the user under the user's current situation, where the determination considers contextual information regarding the user's current circumstances. Abujbara teaches personalizing health recommendations using contextual user information, including lifestyle information, available services, behavioral information, user preferences, service availability, user interaction history, and personalized recommendations ( Abujbara paras. 100-101, 182, 379, 386-387).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Nusbaum's individualized target determination using Abujbara's contextual personalization techniques so that the indicator is determined in view of the user's current situation, including available services, lifestyle characteristics, and other contextual information, rather than relying solely upon demographic and physiological information.
Furthermore, determining the indicator as an achievable range of body-shape change instead of a single target value would have been an obvious design choice that accommodates the expected variability in individual weight-management outcomes while providing the user with a more realistic and personalized recommendation. Expressing a personalized recommendation as a range instead of a single value merely represents routine optimization of the presentation and precision of the recommendation based upon known user-specific information. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because incorporating additional contextual information into Nusbaum's individualized recommendation system predictably improves personalization, avoids unrealistic recommendations, increases user adherence, and improves the usefulness of the computerized weight-management system.
As per claim 2, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor provides information on setting of the goal in relation to the change in the body shape of the user in accordance with the indicator (Nusbaum; Col. 29, lines 43-45; Nusbaum teaches goals and a timeframe used to calculate reachable increments toward the goal; providing this to the user inherently provides goal-setting information consistent with the computed increments.)
As per claim 3, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor provides information on a service in accordance with the indicator. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular, Abujbara para. [0182] teaches customized recommended energy and nutrient budget. Abujbara teaches a recommendation engine and user interactions including selecting from customized recommendations (food/exercise recommendations) and other services (reminders, reports). It would have been obvious to provide service recommendations as taught by Abujbara in Nusbaum’s system in accordance with the computed indicator/targets to better facilitate the user achieving the target.
As per claim 4, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates body information related to a body of the user, and the processor sets the indicator based on the body information (Nusbaum; Col. 30, lines 1-10; Nusbaum explicitly uses body-related information such as weight/height/waist size and frame indicators to calculate ideal weight and related increments).
As per claim 5, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates service information on a service that is available to the user, and the processor sets the indicator based on the service information. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular Abujbara paras. [0386], [0387] teaches Abujbara teaches a recommendation engine and user interactions including selecting from customized recommendations (food/exercise recommendations) and other services (reminders, reports). It would have been obvious to provide service recommendations in Nusbaum’s system in accordance with the computed indicator/targets to better facilitate the user achieving the target.
As per claim 6, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates the service information related to a change in a body shape with use of the service. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular Abujbara para [0101] teaches food and exercise recommendations. Food and exercise recommendations read on "service information related to a change in a body shape..." It would have been obvious to incorporate service-effectiveness / service-outcome information (i.e., how use of a service relates to body-shape change) into the indicator-setting computation to make the indicator outcome-aligned and evidence-based. A system that recommends or identifies services for diet/exercise naturally benefits from mapping services to expected body-change effects; using that mapping to set or calibrate the “indicator” is a predictable extension that improves accuracy and personalization (e.g., adjusting the indicator based on whether the available services support weight loss, strength, cardio, etc.).
As per claim 7, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates the service information on a frequency of use of the service by the user. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular Abujbara para. [0100] teaches a Usage History Store Manager, which tracks usage history/frequency of user interactions/services. It would have been obvious to incorporate usage history / frequency-of-use information into indicator setting to reflect actual user adherence and capacity. Systems that track user interactions or usage are commonly used to tailor recommendations and targets; combining that with indicator setting is a predictable way to set a more realistic indicator.
As per claim 8, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates the service information on the available service in accordance with a lifestyle habit of the user. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular Abujbara para. [0379] describes personalization based on interview/assessment and personalized parameters uploaded for processing—i.e., tailoring to user habits/lifestyle constraints. It would have been obvious to provide personalization based on interviews/assessments in Nusbaum’s system in accordance with the personalization to better facilitate the user achieving the target.
As per claim 9, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates the service information on the service that is available in one of a place of residence and a work place of the user. However, this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Abujbara. In particular Abujbara para. [0387] teaches location-based services and location-based available recommendations, which reasonably encompass availability at user-relevant locations (e.g., residence/workplace). It would have been obvious to incorporate Abujbara’s location/availability-aware service recommendation features into Nusbaum’s goal/indicator system to provide actionable, context-appropriate services that facilitate achieving computed targets, yielding predictable improvements in usability and adherence.
As per claim 10, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates attribute information on the user, and the processor sets the indicator based on the attribute information (Nusbaum; Col. 31; lines 49-55; Nusbaum uses sex and age (attributes) in its user profile data used for calculations/recommendations).
As per claim 11, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the state information that indicates information on a different user who has a predetermined relationship with the user, and the processor sets the indicator based on the information on the different user (Nusbaum; Col. 12, lines 26-35; Nusbaum teaches that goals/thresholds may be set using input from a physician, nutritionist, healthcare provider, personal trainer, etc., i.e., a different user with a predetermined relationship to the user.)
As per claim 12, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further acquires goal information that indicates a goal that is set by the user in relation to a change of a body shape, and the processor, when a difference between the indicator that is set by the processor and the goal that is indicated by the goal information meets a predetermined condition, provides information for proposing to change the goal that is indicated by the goal information (Nusbaum; Col. 4, lines 39-45; Nusbaum teaches reviewing/adjusting a user goal triggered by incremental progress, new weight, or violations, i.e., proposing/revising goals based on changing state and differences from progress.)
As per claim 13, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the processor, when the state information is changed, re-sets the indicator related to the change in the body shape of the user based on the changed state information, and the processor, when a difference between the indicator that is re-set by the processor and the goal that is indicated by the goal information meets a predetermined condition, provides information for proposing to change the goal that is indicated by the goal information (Nusbaum; Col. 4, lines 39-45; Nusbaum teaches reviewing/adjusting a user goal triggered by incremental progress, new weight, or violations, i.e., proposing/revising goals based on changing state and differences from progress.)
Claims 14-15 repeat substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 of the 4/23/2026 that amended claim 1 is no longer directed to merely setting a generic goal, but instead recites determining an indicator representing a range of body-shape change achievable by the user under the user's current situation based upon acquired state information. Applicant further argues that this constitutes a technical improvement over conventional systems because the indicator is tailored to the user's current circumstances rather than predetermined demographic information. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
The amendments narrow the nature of the information being evaluated and the recommendation ultimately generated. However, the claimed processor continues to collect user information, analyze that information, determine a personalized recommendation regarding attainable body-shape outcomes, and communicate that recommendation to the user. Such information gathering, evaluation, and presentation remain abstract information-processing activities that do not improve computer functionality or another technology.
Applicant also relies on the Specification's discussion that conventional systems selected target body shapes using only age, height, and gender, whereas the claimed invention determines an achievable range based on the user's current state.
Although this may represent an improvement in the quality or usefulness of the recommendation provided to the user, improving the content or accuracy of information produced by an abstract process does not, by itself, constitute an improvement in computer technology or another technological field. The claims remain focused on generating and communicating personalized health recommendations rather than improving the operation of the computer itself. Accordingly, the amendments do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant next on pg. 8 begins arguments traversing the rejection of the pending claims of Nusbaum under 35 USC 102/103. It is noted that the arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection with the combination of Nusbaum in view of Abujbara for the entire set of claims. Examiner will continue to address any remaining pertinent arguments.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that the amended language is entitled to patentable weight and is not non-functional descriptive material. The Examiner no longer relies upon the position that the amended limitation constitutes non-functional descriptive material. The amended limitation functionally defines the operation performed by the processor in determining the claimed indicator and is therefore accorded patentable weight.
Applicant on pg. 10 argues that Nusbaum merely teaches a single ideal weight target and weekly weight-loss increments, whereas the amended claims require an indicator representing a range of body-shape change achievable under the user's current situation. The Examiner agrees that Nusbaum primarily determines an ideal target weight together with incremental progress toward that target. Accordingly, the present rejection no longer relies upon Nusbaum alone as allegedly disclosing the amended limitation. Rather, the rejection relies upon the combined teachings of Nusbaum, and Abujbara.
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 LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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 DUNHAM can be reached at 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 7/9/26
Prosecution Insights