DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on January 27, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 2, and 4-10; and cancelled claim 3. Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended the claims to correct informalities identified in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v With respect to the rejection of claims 2-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims. The claims have been amended such that they no longer recite that which was identified as being indefinite. These rejections of claims 2-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) have been withdrawn. Examiner notes, however, that the amended claim language has introduced new limitations that are indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. Please see the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) below.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(2) have been considered, and are persuasive. Each of these independent claims have been amended to recite limitations previously recited in dependent claim 3, which the Examiner indicated was novel and non-obvious. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(2) have been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “in the spirit of advancing prosecution, Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite additional features of the invention such as "a behavior observation device". Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are patent eligible under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG) as including an additional element which integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
The “observation device” is external to the claimed inventions of claims 7 and 8. Furthermore, the unspecified “observation device” in claims 1, 7, and 8 appears to be some device comprising capable of acquiring the behavior history. There are no details provided for such a device in the claims. Applicant’s specification also fails to provide any details whatsoever regarding this device, other than generally suggesting at one location that the behavior history data may be received from an “observation device”. The Examiner there understands that this observation device, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, may be general purpose computer (e.g., user computer, mobile device, etc.). As such, the requirement to have a “behavior observation device” and/or to acquire the behavior history data from the “behavior observation device” is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and/or serves merely to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., distributed computing environments).
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “On p. 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner takes Official Notice… Applicant respectfully disagrees because this assertion amounts to a factual finding that lacks the required evidentiary support, and fails to provide the specific factual statements and explanation required to support Official Notice (See MPEP § 2144.03) For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
Applicant’s own argument acknowledged that MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “states that to support a finding that elements of a claim were well understood, routine, for conventional: The required factual determination must be expressly supported in writing… Appropriate forms of support include… (d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”. The Examiner explicitly made the statement, in writing, that “Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” The phrase “these steps” was clearly referring to the unmistakably quoted limitations. As such, the Examiner’s for of support amounts to sufficient evidentiary support, and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant’s has not actually traversed the Examiner’s Official Notice.
The limitations in question is “acquire…behavior history data and a condition for optimizing an incentive policy for each of users” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8) and/or “output the optimal incentive amount” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8). The Examiner’s position is that these are not “additional” elements. Applicant has not persuasively argued that these should be considered to be “additional” elements. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. The Examiner merely suggested that even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, these limitations would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea).
Furthermore, the Examiner indicated that acquiring data and/or outputting the determined solution data amount to receiving/transmitting data/messages over a network, which the courts have concluded is well-understood, routine, and conventional (supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network). Applicant has not disputed this.
Furthermore, the Examiner indicated that the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim Interpretation
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and have multiple grammatical, idiomatic, and syntax issues. The combination of grammatical and idiomatic/syntax flaws, use of inconsistent terminology, descriptions of intended use, and apparent descriptions of steps occurring outside the scope of the claimed invention have introduced a variety of claim interpretation challenges. The Examiner has attempted to address these issues (e.g., through clarification of claim interpretation, claim objections, and/or via rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), where necessary). However, Applicant’s support in addressing any grammatical/idiomatic/syntax issues during the course of prosecution is encouraged.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 recite the limitation “estimate a parameter value of a behavior model for each user based on the behavior history data, the behavior model having a success stock indicating a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences as an internal variable”. Independent claims 7 and 8 recite nearly identical limitations. The “success stock” limitation is not a term of art, nor is it provided an explicit definition in the disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure suggests a “success stock” variable is a variable having a value that is in some way proportionate to an amount or frequency of success a user has had at achieving/completing a target behavior (e.g., per [0012]-[0015] & [0042]-[0046] & [0048]). As explained in [0012]-[0015] an amount or frequency of success a user has had at achieving/completing a target behavior can be associated with the user’s motivation when subsequently re-attempting to achieve/complete the target behavior (i.e., their psychological experience of the success). As such, the Examiner understands that a variable having a value that is in some way proportionate to an amount or frequency of success a user has had at achieving/completing a target behavior can be said to “indicat(e) a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences”. As such, a behavior model having an internal variable having a value that is in some way proportionate to an amount or frequency of success a user has had at achieving/completing a target behavior in the past will be interpreted as reading on a “behavior model having a success stock indicating a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences as an internal variable”.
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.
v Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 7 is drawn to a method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 are drawn to apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim 8 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 2, and 4-10 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 7 and 8) recites/describes the following steps;
acquire…behavior history data and a condition for optimizing an incentive amount for each user;
estimate a parameter value of a behavior model for each user based on the behavior history data, the behavior model having a success stock indicating a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences as an internal variable;
calculate the optimal incentive amount for each user based on the estimated parameter value and the condition; and
output the optimal incentive amount
wherein the behavior history data includes a series of incentive amounts at each observation time for each user, an observed value of a target behavior of evaluating success or failure of a behavior aimed at each observation time for each user, and one or more explanatory variables that include information having an influence on the behavior aimed at each observation time for each user, and
wherein the behavior model for each user further includes determining whether the target behavior is successful as the internal variable, and the determining is performed by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each user, and a function representing an influence of each user on the one or more explanatory variables
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a business process for determining cost-optimal user-specific incentive amounts for encouraging target user behavior. More specially, the process comprises estimating parameter values of user-specific behavior models based on acquired behavior history data (wherein the behavior history data includes a series of incentive amounts at each observation time for each user, an observed value of a target behavior of evaluating success or failure of a behavior aimed at each observation time for each user, and one or more explanatory variables that include information having an influence on the behavior aimed at each observation time for each user) and optimization condition for each user (the behavior model having a success stock indicating a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences as an internal variable, and wherein the behavior model for each user further includes determining whether the target behavior is successful as the internal variable, and the determining is performed by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each user, and a function representing an influence of each user on the one or more explanatory variables), calculating an optimal incentive amount for each user based on the estimated parameter value and the condition, outputting the optimal incentive amount. This process amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); a commercial or legal interactions (specifically business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., a social activity, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps/functions, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, the step of “acquire behavior history data...” amounts to one or more observations, the step of “estimate a parameter value…” amounts to one or more evaluations or judgements, and the step of “calculate an optimal incentive amount for each user…” amounts to one or more evaluations or judgements. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 7 and 8 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“an information processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to…” (Independent claim 1)
“executed by an information processing apparatus including a processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the processor…” (Independent claim 7)
“a non- transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executed by a processor included in an information processing apparatus to provide the steps of…” (Independent claim 8)
“a behavior observation device…from the behavior observation device” (claim 1)
“from a behavior observation device” (claims 7 and 8)
“the circuitry further configured to…” (Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to…” (Independent claim 1) or “executed by an information processing apparatus including a processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the process…” (Independent claim 7) or “a non- transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executed by a processor included in an information processing apparatus to provide the steps of…” (Independent claim 8), and the recitation of “the circuitry further configured to…” (Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10) and/or “a behavior observation device…from the behavior observation device” (claim 1) and/or “from a behavior observation device” (claims 7 and 8) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the as-filed specification at paragraph [0016] “The information processing apparatus 1 is implemented by a computer such as a personal computer (PC)” and [0088] “the scheme described in the foregoing embodiment can also be stored as programs (software means) which can be executed by a computer”). Furthermore, there are no details provided for the “behavior observation device” the claims. Applicant’s specification also fails to provide any details whatsoever regarding this device, other than generally suggesting at one location that the behavior history data may be received from an “observation device”. The Examiner there understands that this behavior observation device, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, may be general purpose computer (e.g., user computer, mobile device, etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “a behavior observation device…from the behavior observation device” (claim 1) and/or “from a behavior observation device” (claims 7 and 8) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “acquire, from the behavior observation device, behavior history data and a condition for optimizing an incentive amount for each user” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8) and/or “output the optimal incentive amount” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and because such data gathering and solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because different people may respond differently to different incentives (e.g., incentive amounts) and people themselves may respond differently to incentives at different times (e.g., different days, different level of achievement relative to a target behavior, different levels of self-efficacy), and therefore developing user-specific behavior models that take this information into account in order to calculate user-specific incentive policies can help to maximize encouragement and potential achievement of a certain target behavior with optimal (i.e., minimum) level of incentive, which can minimize costs or expand profits for the entity administering the incentive program (see, for example, Applicant’s as-filed disclosure at paragraphs [0002]-[0006] & [0009] & [0015] & [0083] & [0086] ). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved way of calculating/determining incentive policies for users).
Dependent claims 3-5 and 9 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 5 and 9 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 4 recites “wherein the function representing the influence on the success stock for each user is one of a monotonically increasing function, a function increasing until a predetermined value and changing to a decrease after the predetermined value, and a function decreasing to a predetermined value and changing to an increase after the predetermined value”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 4 (e.g., it further describes the behavior data being analyzed and the model being developed). This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to…” (Independent claim 1) or “executed by an information processing apparatus including a processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the processor…by the process…” (Independent claim 7) or “a non- transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executed by a processor included in an information processing apparatus to provide the steps of…” (Independent claim 8), and the recitation of “the circuitry further configured to…” (Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “a behavior observation device…from the behavior observation device” (claim 1) and/or “from a behavior observation device” (claims 7 and 8) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of ““acquire, from the behavior observation device, behavior history data and a condition for optimizing an incentive amount for each user” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8) and/or “output the optimal incentive amount” (Independent claims 1, 7, and 8), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of behavioral encouragement and/or incentive policy determination. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 4, 5 and 9 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 5 and 9 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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, 2, and 4-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v Claims 1, 7, and 8 recite the phrase " wherein the behavior model for each user further includes determining whether the target behavior is successful as the internal variable, and the determining is performed by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each user, and a function representing an influence of each user on the one or more explanatory variables" and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention . Each of the claims already states that the success stock is an internal variable. It is unclear how the model also comprises determining whether the target behavior is successful “as the internal variable” of the model (i.e., the internal variable previously introduced, which is defined as the success stock). Furthermore, the phrase “the incentive amount for each user” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The claims each previously refer to a series of incentive amounts for each user, and it is unclear as to which incentive amount of the series is being referred. Examiner also notes that it is generally unclear what is meant by “wherein the behavior model for each user further includes determining whether the target behavior is successful as the internal variable”, which appears to have one or more grammatical or syntax errors. For example, it is unclear how a behavior model, which is a mathematical expression/model/function, can “include(s) determining whether” something is true. Based on the subsequent language (“the determining is performed by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each user, and a function representing an influence of each user on the one or more explanatory variables”), it appears as if Applicant is intending to refer to one or more additional internal variables of the model (e.g., as discussed in paragraphs [0046]-[0048] of the as-filed specification) that is itself determined by one or more functions. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the behavior model for each user further includes determining whether the target behavior is successful as the internal variable, and the determining is performed by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each user, and a function representing an influence of each user on the one or more explanatory variables” will be interpreted as being “wherein the behavior model for each user further includes an internal variable for determining whether the target behavior [[is]]will likely be successful internal variable is determined respective user, a function representing sensitivity to the incentive amount for each respective user, and a function representing an influence of each respective user on the one or more explanatory variables”. This interpretation addresses each of the issues identified above, and is consistent with Applicant’s as-filed specification at [0046]-[0047].
Each of dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
v Claims 5 and 9 recite the phrase " wherein the behavior model for each user is stochastically generated from a binomial distribution represented by a nonnegative function which has determining whether the target behavior is successful as a variable" and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention . It is generally unclear what is meant by “a nonnegative function which has determining whether the target behavior is successful as a variable”, which appears to have one or more grammatical or syntax errors. For example, it is unclear how a nonnegative function, which is a mathematical expression/model/function, can have “determining whether the target behavior is successful” as a variable. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the behavior model for each user is stochastically generated from a binomial distribution represented by a nonnegative function which has determining whether the target behavior is successful as a variable” will be interpreted as being “wherein the behavior model for each user is stochastically generated from a binomial distribution represented by a nonnegative function which has the internal variable for determining whether the target behavior [[is]]will likely be successful as a variable”.
Dependent claims 6 and 10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 7, and 8 recites novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Singer et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2010/0015584, January 21, 2010 - hereinafter "Singer”), Paulina et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2020/0065682 February 27, 2020 - hereinafter "Paulina”), Bajaj et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0358844 November 10, 2022 - hereinafter "Bajaj”), Kaufman et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0072156 March 29, 2007 - hereinafter "Kaufman”), Chang et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2018/0336480 November 22, 2018 - hereinafter "Chang”), Lyke et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0093919 April 1, 2021 - hereinafter "Paulina”), Sundstram et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. No. 2020/0237291 July 30, 2020 - hereinafter "Sundstram”), Chao et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.. 2015/0235252 August 20, 2015 - hereinafter "Chao”), Abe et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.. 2004/0015386 January 22, 2004 - hereinafter "Abe”), and “Motivation as a function of success frequency” (Van der Kooij, Katinka et al.; published September 30, 2021; Motiv Emot. 2021;45(6):759-768. doi: 10.1007/s11031-021-09904-3. Epub; PMID: 34608344; PMCID: PMC8482356)
Singer discloses a system for determining optimized and user-specific incentive models and policies based on historical user behavior data, including wherein the behavior model comprises a success stock variable and an estimated user-specific parameter. Singer suggests personalizing incentive level based on historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values because different persons may have different levels of intrinsic motivation, and therefore may require different levels of inventive to maximize behavioral modification while optimizing overall inventive costs.
Paulina discloses a system for determining user-specific incentive models and motivational/inventive policies based on historical user behavior data, including wherein the behavior model comprises a success stock variable and an estimated user-specific parameter. Paulina suggests wherein each user’s behavior model comprises a motivational state variable that is determined based on a user’s historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values. Discloses a variety of machine learning techniques that may be applied to determine each user-specific incentive model.
Bajaj discloses for determining user-specific incentive models and motivational/inventive policies based on historical user behavior data. Discloses wherein each user-specific behavioral model is determined based on user-specific incentive sensitivity functions.
Kaufman discloses a system for generating user-specific behavioral feedback based on determinations of user-specific motivational factors that are a function of a user’s historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values.
Chang discloses adapting target behavior requirements for a user based on user-specific historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values as part of a behavioral modification program because of the known association between self-belief/efficacy and psychological motivation levels, which then affect subsequent performance.
Lyke discloses a system for generating user-specific behavioral models used for generating user-specific behavioral coaching. The user-specific behavioral models are determined based on user-specific motivational factors that are a function of a user’s historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values.
Sundstrom discloses a system for generating user-specific behavioral models used for generating user-specific behavioral coaching. The user-specific behavioral models are determined based on user-specific motivational factors that are a function of a user’s historic success rate/frequency and user-specific baseline values. Discloses a variety of data sensors used to obtain historical exercise/behavior data.
Chao discloses for determining user-specific incentive models and motivational/inventive policies based on historical user behavior data. Discloses wherein each user-specific behavioral model is determined based on user-specific incentive sensitivity functions and historic rate/frequency of performing a desired target behavior. Discloses optimizing target behavior adherence along with overall incentive costs/expenditure.
Abe discloses optimizing incentive programs by solving a Bellman optimality equation in a Markov decision process in which transitions from the time to a next time at a probability of 1.
“Motivation as a function of success frequency” discloses the known association between self-belief/efficacy and psychological motivation levels, which then affect subsequent performance, where self-belief/efficacy is a function of historic rate/frequency of performing a desired target behavior. Discloses that success stock for each user may be a function increasing until a predetermined value and changing to a decrease after the predetermined value.
As per claims 1, 7, and 8, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the specific combination of claim features. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific requirement for the behavior model to comprise "a parameter value that is estimated based on the behavior history data, a success stock variable indicating a psychological accumulated amount of past success experiences; and further (per the required claim interpretation of the claims as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 7 ,and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above) where the behavior model is required to comprise an internal variable for determining whether the target behavior will likely be successful, and the internal variable is determined by a function representing an influence on the success stock for each respective user, a function representing sensitivity to the series of incentive amounts for each respective user, and a function representing an influence of each respective user on the explanatory variable. A behavior model comprising this specific combination of parameters/variables, including a motivation variable that is itself required to be determined by these three specific and distinct functions (i.e., i) a function representing an influence on the success stock for each respective user, ii) a function representing sensitivity to the series of incentive amounts for each respective user, and iii) a function representing an influence of each respective user on the explanatory variable), is not taught in the prior art, nor would it have been obvious other than with impermissible hindsight.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 10 depend upon claim 1 and have all the limitations of claim 1, and therefore similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621