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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application filed 12/3/2024. It is noted that application is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/019916 filed 05/29/2023 which claims priority to Foreign Application JAPAN 2022-098673 filed 06/20/2022. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 12/3/2024 has been acknowledged and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation are: “acquisition unit”; “setting unit”; “providing unit in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 14 and 15, it is unclear as to what is meant by the term “achievable.” There are no clear boundaries for what makes an index “achievable.” Clarification is needed. Dependent claims 2-13 incorporate deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend upon.
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 index, 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 index 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 index, 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: an acquisition unit that acquires state information on a state of a user;
a setting unit that sets an index that is achievable in the state of the user with respect to a change in a body shape of the user, based on the state information that is acquired by the acquisition unit; and
a providing unit that provides information on the index that is set by the setting unit 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 index (i.e. goal or target); and providing information on the index 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 “achievable index” (a goal/target) for body-shape change based on that information, 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 personalized goal setting / recommendation / coaching (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: an acquisition unit that acquires state information on a state of a user;
a setting unit that sets an index that is achievable in the state of the user with respect to a change in a body shape of the user, based on the state information that is acquired by the acquisition unit; and
a providing unit that provides information on the index that is set by the setting unit 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 and units 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 processing apparatus and units 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 index and providing information for the index 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 § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nusbaum (8,690,578).
As per claim 1, Nusbaum teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires state information on a state of a user (Nusbaum; Col. 28, lines 17-20; Nusbaum teaches obtaining user “minimum user ID data” including sex, age, height, weight, wrist size, waist size, and goals/timeframe as part of a user profile);
a setting unit that sets an index that is achievable in the state of the user with respect to a change in a body shape of the user, based on the state information that is acquired by the acquisition unit (Nusbaum; Col. 29, lines 43-45; Nusbaum teaches using the user profile/body info to calculate ideal weight and to calculate reachable increments toward the user goal across a reasonable time interval (e.g., 1–2 lbs/week), i.e., an achievable index/target tied to body change.) It is further noted that the limitation that is achievable in the state of the user with respect to a change in a body shape of the user is non-functional descriptive material and is not required by the claim; and
a providing unit that provides information on the index that is set by the setting unit to the user (Nusbaum; Col. 3, lines 18-23; Nusbaum teaches providing user feedback and a structured system via a mobile computing device and UI, including feedback regarding progress toward goal achievement).
As per claim 2, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the providing unit provides information on setting of the goal in relation to the change in the body shape of the user in accordance with the index (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 4, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the state information that indicates body information related to a body of the user, and the setting unit sets the index 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 10, Nusbaum teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the state information that indicates attribute information on the user, and the setting unit sets the index 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 acquisition unit acquires the state information that indicates information on a different user who has a predetermined relationship with the user, and the setting unit sets the index 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 acquisition unit 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 providing unit, when a difference between the index that is set by the setting unit 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 setting unit, when the state information is changed, re-sets the index related to the change in the body shape of the user based on the changed state information, and the providing unit, when a difference between the index that is re-set by the setting unit 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.
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 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nusbaum (8,690,578) in view of Abujbara (20180004914).
As per claim 3, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the providing unit provides information on a service in accordance with the index. 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 index/targets to better facilitate the user achieving the target.
As per claim 5, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the state information that indicates service information on a service that is available to the user, and the setting unit sets the index 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 index/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 acquisition unit 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 index-setting computation to make the index 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 “index” is a predictable extension that improves accuracy and personalization (e.g., adjusting the index 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 acquisition unit 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 index 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 index setting is a predictable way to set a more realistic index.
As per claim 8, Nusbaum does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the acquisition unit 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 acquisition unit 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/index system to provide actionable, context-appropriate services that facilitate achieving computed targets, yielding predictable improvements in usability and adherence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pacione (EP-2363061-A1), the closest foreign prior art of record, teaches tracking user/body/behavior data and provides feedback/coaching for weight/body management.
Ghelani et al. (Ghelani DP, Moran LJ, Johnson C, Mousa A, Naderpoor N. Mobile Apps for Weight Management: A Review of the Latest Evidence to Inform Practice. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Jun 24;11:412. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00412. PMID: 32670197; PMCID: PMC7326765.), the closest non patent literature of record teaches the concept adaptive goal setting (i.e., dynamically setting targets rather than fixed goals) and using mobile technology to facilitate weight management.
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 1/9/2026