CTNF 18/871,386 CTNF 96358 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. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 10, “estimate an internal state” should read “estimate the internal state” as the limitation has antecedence in lines 1-2. In claim 4, line 7, “generating proforma information” should read either “generating the proforma information” or “generating additional proforma information” as the limitation has antecedence in line 5. In claim 4, line 12, “estimating an internal state” should read “estimating the internal state” as the limitation has antecedence in line 1. In claim 7, line 7, “generate proforma information” should read either “generating the proforma information” or “generate additional proforma information” as the limitation has antecedence in line 5. In claim 7, line 12, “estimate an internal state” should read “estimate the internal state” as the limitation has antecedence in line 2 . Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite a machine for performing a process, the process, and a computer program product including the process, the process including the steps of estimate an internal state of a subject in accordance with a m easurement result of biological information on the subject in each of a first period and a second period later than the first period; generate proforma information indicating each of a plurality of states assuming the internal state of the subject [claims 4 and 7]; generating proforma information corresponding to a proforma internal state of the subject in the first period; predict the biological information on the subject in the second period in accordance with the proforma internal state of the subject and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the first period; and estimate an internal state corresponding to the biological information in accordance with a difference between the predicted biological information and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the second period . The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are estimating an internal state of a subject based on measured biological information in each of a first and second period; generating proforma information indicating a plurality of states, generating proforma information corresponding to a proforma internal state of the subject, predicting the biological information on the subject in the second period, and estimating an internal state corresponding to the biological information based on a difference between the prediction and the measured result. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (evaluation (estimating an internal state; predicting the biological information; estimating an internal state in accordance with a difference), judgement (generating proforma information)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, and 7 recite abstract ideas. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are an electronic device comprising a controller, the steps being performed at the electronic device [claims 4 and 7], and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a control program [claim 7]. The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of an electronic device, a controller, and a NTCRM are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0012 of the specification states the electronic device may be any of a variety of devices, such as a general purpose smart phone, computer, or laptop. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of an electronic device, a controller, and a NTCRM used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1, 4, and 7 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are dependent from claims 1, 4, and 7, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example: The limitations of claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9, recite further abstract ideas including calculating a certainty factor of an estimation result (evaluation MP); determining whether the estimation result is output or remade (judgement MP); and estimating the internal state further in accordance with attribute information (evaluation MP). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are the same as discussed above of the steps being performed by/applied with a generic electronic/computing device and therefore fall under the “apply it” grouping. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims. Accordingly, claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minusa (US PGPub 20230309884) . With regard to claim 1, Minusa teaches an electronic device comprising a controller configured to estimate an internal state of a subject in accordance with a measurement result of biological information on the subject in each of a first period and a second period later than the first period (Paragraphs 0057, 0060, 0117, 0121 teaches a data processing device for measuring physiological data continuously including using past measurement data (first period) to predict or estimate a future state (internal state) of the user based on the measurements) , wherein the controller (Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0047) is configured to generate proforma information corresponding to a proforma internal state of the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0055, 0074-0075, 0088, 0117, 0120-0121 teach the system determines a normal or usual state for the user based in part on past physiological measurement data as well as estimating natural emotions/states in daily life (proforma internal state)) ; predict the biological information on the subject in the second period in accordance with the proforma internal state of the subject and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0054-0055, 0058, 0068, 0120-0122 teach the system determine natural emotions of daily life and estimated states for the user assuming the natural emotions including estimated physiological measurement data including past (first period) physiological measurements) ; and estimate an internal state corresponding to the biological information in accordance with a difference between the predicted biological information and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the second period (Paragraphs 0074, 0080-0081, 0088, 0120-0122 teach the system generates an estimate of a subjective state and/or mood (internal state of the user) different from the usual based on the discrepancy between the normal state and expected physiological measurement data of the user and the measured physiological measurement data of a current/future (second period) time) . With regard to claim 3, Minusa further teaches wherein the controller is configured to estimate the internal state of the subject further in accordance with attribute information on the subject (Paragraphs 0062, 0091, 0110, 0130 teach the system and process can include using user attribute and characteristic data such as gender and age as part of the physiological measurement data thereby being used to estimate the state of the user). With regard to claim 4, Minusa teaches a control method for an electronic device estimating an internal state of a subject in accordance with a measurement result of biological information on the subject in each of a first period and a second period later than the first period (Paragraphs 0057, 0060, 0117, 0121 teaches a data processing device for performing a processing method including measuring physiological data continuously including using past measurement data (first period) to predict or estimate a future state (internal state) of the user based on the measurements) , the control method comprising: at the electronic device, generating proforma information indicating each of a plurality of states assuming the internal state of the subject (Paragraphs 0055, 0074-0075, 0088, 0106, 0117, 0120-0121 teach the system determines a normal or usual state for the user based in part on past physiological measurement data as well as estimating natural emotions/states in daily life (proforma internal state) including a plurality of basic emotions (plurality of states)) ; at the electronic device, generating proforma information corresponding to a proforma internal state of the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0055, 0074-0075, 0088, 0117, 0120-0121 teach the system determines a normal or usual state for the user based in part on past physiological measurement data as well as estimating natural emotions/states in daily life (proforma internal state)) ; at the electronic device, predicting the biological information on the subject in the second period, in accordance with the proforma internal state of the subject and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0054-0055, 0058, 0068, 0120-0122 teach the system determine natural emotions of daily life and estimated states for the user assuming the natural emotions including estimated physiological measurement data including past (first period) physiological measurements) ; and at the electronic device, estimating an internal state corresponding to the biological information, in accordance with a difference between the predicted biological information and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the second period (Paragraphs 0074, 0080-0081, 0088, 0120-0122 teach the system generates an estimate of a subjective state and/or mood (internal state of the user) different from the usual based on the discrepancy between the normal state and expected physiological measurement data of the user and the measured physiological measurement data of a current/future (second period) time) . With regard to claim 6, Minusa further teaches wherein the electronic device estimates the internal state of the subject further in accordance with attribute information on the subject (Paragraphs 0062, 0091, 0110, 0130 teach the system and process can include using user attribute and characteristic data such as gender and age as part of the physiological measurement data thereby being used to estimate the state of the user). With regard to claim 7, Minusa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a control program for an electronic device estimating an internal state of a subject in accordance with a measurement result of biological information on the subject in each of a first period and a second period later than the first period (Paragraphs 0057, 0060, 0117, 0121, 0138 teaches a data processing device for executing software stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium including measuring physiological data continuously including using past measurement data (first period) to predict or estimate a future state (internal state) of the user based on the measurements) , the control program comprising: causing the electronic device to generate proforma information indicating each of a plurality of states assuming the internal state of the subject (Paragraphs 0055, 0074-0075, 0088, 0106, 0117, 0120-0121 teach the system determines a normal or usual state for the user based in part on past physiological measurement data as well as estimating natural emotions/states in daily life (proforma internal state) including a plurality of basic emotions (plurality of states)) ; causing the electronic device to generate proforma information corresponding to a proforma internal state of the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0055, 0074-0075, 0088, 0117, 0120-0121 teach the system determines a normal or usual state for the user based in part on past physiological measurement data as well as estimating natural emotions/states in daily life (proforma internal state)) ; causing the electronic device to predict the biological information on the subject in the second period in accordance with the proforma internal state of the subject and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the first period (Paragraphs 0054-0055, 0058, 0068, 0120-0122 teach the system determine natural emotions of daily life and estimated states for the user assuming the natural emotions including estimated physiological measurement data including past (first period) physiological measurements) ; and causing the electronic device to estimate an internal state corresponding to the biological information in accordance with a difference between the predicted biological information and the measurement result of the biological information on the subject in the second period (Paragraphs 0074, 0080-0081, 0088, 0120-0122 teach the system generates an estimate of a subjective state and/or mood (internal state of the user) different from the usual based on the discrepancy between the normal state and expected physiological measurement data of the user and the measured physiological measurement data of a current/future (second period) time) . With regard to claim 9, Minusa further teaches wherein the control program causes the electronic device to estimate the internal state of the subject further in accordance with attribute information on the subject (Paragraphs 0062, 0091, 0110, 0130 teach the system and process can include using user attribute and characteristic data such as gender and age as part of the physiological measurement data thereby being used to estimate the state of the user) . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minusa in view of Sato (US PGPub 20200126664) . With regard to claims 2, 5, and 8, Minusa further teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate a certainty factor of an estimation result of the internal state of the subject (Paragraphs 0077-0079, 0087, 0117 teach the system performs and uncertainty assessment for the estimation of the user state) , but may not explicitly teach determine, in accordance with the certainty factor, whether the estimation result of the internal state of the subject is output or estimation of the internal state of the subject is remade. However, Sato teaches a support system for estimating an internal state of a target wherein the estimate is verified using a verification module to determine the accuracy of the state estimated such that the estimate is output if the accuracy exceeds a target or repeats the process or requests further data or testing to improve the accuracy (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0042, 0050, 0154, 0206-0208). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Minusa to incorporate the teachings of Sato by applying the technique of verifying an estimation of a user/target state of Sato to the state estimation of Minusa, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to systems and methods for estimating a user state based on biological/physiological measurement data. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Minusa by coding the system to include a verification process of the estimations in order to determine an accuracy of the estimations wherein the system will output the estimation if it exceeds a certain accuracy or further process the data by gathering further data or rerunning the process if the accuracy is too low. Upon such modification, the method and system of Minusa would include determine, in accordance with the certainty factor, whether the estimation result of the internal state of the subject is output or estimation of the internal state of the subject is remade. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Sato with Minusa’s system and method in order to improve system performance and accuracy by verifying the estimations and improving estimation accuracy before outputting the results. Conclusion Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST. 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. /CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/871,386 Page 12 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights