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 .
Response to Arguments
The interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 06/23/26.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is moot as claim 4 has been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are amended to recite a “processor” and thus are tied to a particular machine or apparatus (Remarks, filed 06/23/26, p. 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea(s) on a computer and/or generally links the abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment (computing environment) (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). As evidence that the processor is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing component, Applicant’s Specification discloses the processor in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known such that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Specification, p. 5, “The score calculating device 100 includes a processing device, such as a central processing unit (CPU)” & p. 26, which simply recites “The score calculating device and the score calculating method according to the present disclosure can be applied to a processing device such as a computer.”) (see further MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)(A)).
Applicant next argues that the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do not encompass mental processes, specifically contending that the limitations, particularly, detecting when a distance between a position of the subject and a position of an object is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance and calculating an independent behavior score indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on a type of the object, require action by a processor (Remarks, filed 06/23/26, pp. 6-7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion), and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationship and/or calculation). For example, with respect to the above-recited limitations, a human could mentally (i.e., visually) detect that a distance between a position of the subject and a position of an object (e.g., a toy, book, etc.) is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance (i.e., 1 foot, 10 feet, etc.), and further, could mentally calculate an independent behavior score indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on the object (i.e., assigning or calculating a higher score indicating a higher degree of engagement of the subject in individual behavior (e.g., reading a book), and a lower score indicating a lower degree of engagement of the subject in individual behavior (e.g., a score of 0 when the subject is determined to not be in the proximity of an object, or a lower score value when engaging with an object such as a ball)). Additionally, and/or alternatively, the calculating of the scores (i.e., the independent behavior score), encompasses a mathematical concept (i.e., performing calculations using gathered/observed data and/or drawing a mathematical relationship between a score and gathered/observed data).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that, by calculating the communication score, it is possible to prevent instances of bullying or undesirable behavior amongst those in the predetermined group, and thus the claims constitute a practical application (Remarks, filed 06/23/26, pp. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite calculating a plurality of scores based on detected subject behavior (i.e., a history of position information with respect to a group, tendency/frequency of interaction, proximity/engagement with an object). The claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea(s) (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(e)) such that the abstract idea(s) are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A – Prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is directed to identifying the spatial relation between the subject and an object (calculating the distance between the subject and an object based on their position information and detecting that they are in proximity to each other) which is physical data and where a highly accurate calculation of the individual behavior score of a subject can be achieved, and thus contains non-abstract ideas according to the decision in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Remarks, filed 06/23/26, pp. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant has noted, the determination of patent eligibility in the Thales decision was based on the particular and unconventional configuration and utilization of inertial sensors to track an object on a moving platform that reduces errors (Remarks, filed 06/23/26, p. 7). The Court in Thales found that the invention recited a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform (a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object and a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference frame) that eliminated complications inherent in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. Alternatively in the present invention, the subject limitation of calculating, when it is detected that a distance between a position of the subject and a position of an object is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance during a target period, an independent behavior score indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on a type of the object encompasses a mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion), and/or a mathematical concept (mathematical relationship and/or calculation). Unlike in Thales, the subject limitation may be performed mentally by a human. Moreover, there is no clear indication as to how the use of distance of a subject to an object indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior is an improved technique, as opposed to the findings in Thales which included improved accuracy with which inertial sensors measure the tracked object on a moving frame (changing the reference frame), a system that can operate independently without requiring other hardware on the moving platform to determine the orientation or position of the moving platform itself, and simpler installation than previous inertial systems because the whole system is installed on the inside of the moving platform. Further, in Thales, the mathematical equation was incidental to the new and useful configuration of the sensors, wherein the equations were derived from the particular arrangement of sensors on the tracked object and the moving platform.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented below.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 06/23/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the subject” recited in claim 1, ln. 11 and claim 5, ln. 8 should likely read “[[the]]a subject”; and
“indicating number of times” recited in claim 2, ln. 6-7 and claim 6, ln. 4 should likely read “indicating a number of times”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 5 recites in part “A score calculating method…”, which falls under the “process” statutory category of invention.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites limitations which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 5 recites: A score calculating method comprising:
calculating, by a processor, based on a history of position information of a plurality of subjects belonging to a predetermined group, an isolation score indicating a degree of isolation from a group for each of the subjects (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment; and/or mathematical concept: mathematical relationship and/or calculation);
calculating, by the processor, a tendency score indicating a tendency of each subject regarding interaction with others (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment; and/or mathematical concept: mathematical relationship and/or calculation);
calculating, by the processor, when it is detected that a distance between a position of the subject and a position of an object is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance during a target period, an independent behavior score indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on a type of the object (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment; and/or mathematical concept: mathematical relationship and/or calculation); and
calculating, by the processor, a communication score indicating a degree of communication with others in the group for each of the subjects during the target period based on the isolation score, the tendency score, and the independent behavior score (mental process: observation/evaluation/judgment; and/or mathematical concept: mathematical relationship and/or calculation).
Thereby, as indicated above, the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass limitations that can be performed by a human in the human mind and/or using pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer (processor). For example, a human (e.g., teacher/therapist/etc.) may mentally determine (calculate) scores based on gathered (e.g., visually observed and/or documented) data. Additionally, and/or alternatively, the claim limitations encompass mathematical concepts (i.e., performing calculations using gathered/observed data and/or drawing a mathematical relationship between a score and gathered/observed data). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. The additional element of a “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea(s) on a generic computer and/or generally links the abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment (computing environment) (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). The claim does not recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technological field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), apply the abstract idea(s) with a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and/or add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea(s).
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the claim does not further include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of a “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea(s) on a computer and/or generally links the abstract idea(s) to a computing environment. As evidence that the processor is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing component, Applicant’s Specification discloses the processor in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known such that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Specification, p. 5, “The score calculating device 100 includes a processing device, such as a central processing unit (CPU)” & p. 26, which simply recites “The score calculating device and the score calculating method according to the present disclosure can be applied to a processing device such as a computer.”). Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 5 discussed above.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are dependent on claims 1 and 5, respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above. The limitations of claims 2-3 and 6-7 further define the parameters for calculating the isolation score and tendency score (i.e., average distance of a subject and other subjects, proximity count, communication score history) and thus further encompass the abstract idea(s) of mental process (i.e., observation/evaluation/judgment) and/or mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical calculations and/or relationships). While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 2-3 and 6-7 are also not patent eligible.
Acknowledgments
No prior art is provided for claims 1-3 and 5-7. As presented, the combination of all the elements of the independent claims does not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the independent claims. Specifically, the prior cited art fails to disclose or teach at least the limitation of calculating, when it is detected that a distance between a position of the subject and a position of an object is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance during a target period, an independent behavior score indicating a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on a type of the object, wherein the independent behavior score is used in the calculation of a communication score indicating a degree of communication with others in a group, as required by the amended independent claims. Additional, relevant art fails to cure this deficiency (see U.S. 12,041,288 B2, wherein determining an engagement score that characterizes a level of user engagement with respect to a media object includes determining a distance between the visual representation of the media object and a gaze position; U.S. Pub. 2013/0290108 A1, where a computer can analyze a number of different factors to determine whether a relationship exists or is likely to exist between two or more members of an audience, but failing to teach wherein a position of a member in relation to a position of an object indicates a degree of engaging in individual behavior based on a type of the object).
However, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented in detail above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights