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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 07/09/26.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 3 was previously canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/26 has been entered.
Continuity/Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of parent Application No. JP2024-030608, filed on 02/29/24. Accordingly, a priority date of 02/29/24 has been given to the instant application.
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, 2, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 are drawn to a system, Claim 9 is drawn to a method, and Claim 10 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program, each of which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 2, 4-10 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
generating related behavioral data of a related behavior that is a behavior excluding instruction of a subject intention from received measurement data,
acquiring one or more behavioral features that are respectively nonverbal features based on related behavioral data with respect to each of one or more related behaviors,
selecting an estimation model to use for estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject based at least on an arithmetic operation load of the arithmetic operation apparatus, wherein, based on the arithmetic operation load being less than a threshold, the first estimation model is selected, and based on the arithmetic operation load being greater than or equal to the threshold, the second estimation model is selected (Examiner prospectively notes that ‘arithmetic operation load of the arithmetic operation apparatus’ has been included in the scope of the abstract idea, as it merely describes the basis for making a selection of an estimation model and does not positively recite the arithmetic operation apparatus performing any functions)
estimating the psychological characteristic of the subject based on the one or more behavioral features, and
outputting estimated psychological characteristic data that is data expressing the psychological characteristic that is estimated.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Generating related behavioral data of a subject, acquiring a plurality of non-verbal behavioral features with respect to a plurality of related behaviors, selecting an estimation model to use based on an arithmetic operation load, estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject, and providing an output of the estimated psychological characteristic data, are personal behaviors that may be performed by one individual observing another individual, such as a psychologist or behavioral therapist, a healthcare provider, or a person conducting an interview with a subject.
Additionally, these steps pertaining to generate related behavioral data of a related behavior that is a behavior excluding instruction of a subject intention from the measurement data, acquire one or more behavioral features that are respectively nonverbal features based on related behavioral data with respect to each of one or more related behaviors, select an estimation model to use for estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject based at least on an arithmetic operation load, wherein, based on the arithmetic operation load being less than a threshold, the first estimation model is selected, and based on the arithmetic operation load being greater than or equal to the threshold, the second estimation model is selected; estimate the psychological characteristic of the subject based on the one or more behavioral features, and output estimated psychological characteristic data that is data expressing the psychological characteristic that is estimated, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for recitation of general purpose computer components. The steps of generating data, acquiring data, selecting a model, estimating a psychological characteristic, and outputting the estimated psychological data, are concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgement, and decision in the human mind or with a calculation aid such as pencil and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for general purpose computing components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For purposes of analysis, the types of abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea.
Claim 9 and Claim 10 recite implementing the steps of:
generating related behavioral data of related behaviors that is all or part of behaviors excluding designation of an intention of the subject from the measurement data,
acquiring one or more behavioral features that are respectively nonverbal features based on related behavioral data with respect to one or more respective related behaviors,
selecting an estimation model to use for estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject based at least on a processor usage rate of the computer, wherein, based on the processor usage rate being less than a threshold, a first estimation model is selected, and based on the processor usage rate being greater than or equal to the threshold, a second estimation model is selected, wherein the first estimation model has weighting coefficients for behavioral features that change over time, and the second estimation model has respective weighting coefficients for behavioral features that correspond to respective time slots for evaluating the subject, the first estimation model requiring more calculation resources than the second estimation model (Examiner prospectively notes that ‘processor usage rate of the computer’ has been included in the scope of the abstract idea, as it merely describes the basis for making a selection of an estimation model and does not positively recite the computer performing any functions)
estimating the psychological characteristic of the subject based on the one or more behavioral features,
outputting estimated psychological characteristic data that expresses the estimated psychological characteristic.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Generating related behavioral data of a subject, acquiring a plurality of non-verbal behavioral features with respect to a plurality of related behaviors, selecting an estimation model to use, estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject, and providing an output of the estimated psychological characteristic data, are personal behaviors that may be performed by one individual observing another individual, such as a psychologist or behavioral therapist, a healthcare provider, or a person conducting an interview with a subject.
The steps pertaining to generate related behavioral data of a related behavior that is a behavior excluding instruction of a subject intention from the measurement data, acquire one or more behavioral features that are respectively nonverbal features based on related behavioral data with respect to each of one or more related behaviors, select an estimation model to use for estimating a psychological characteristic of the subject based at least on a processor usage rate of the computer, wherein, based on the processor usage rate being less than a threshold, a first estimation model is selected, and based on the processor usage rate being greater than or equal to the threshold, a second estimation model is selected, wherein the first estimation model has weighting coefficients for behavioral features that change over time, and the second estimation model has respective weighting coefficients for behavioral features that correspond to respective time slots for evaluating the subject, the first estimation model requiring more calculation; estimate the psychological characteristic of the subject based on the one or more behavioral features, and output estimated psychological characteristic data that is data expressing the psychological characteristic that is estimated, also cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for recitation of general purpose computer components. The steps of generating data, selecting a model, estimating a psychological characteristic, and outputting the estimated psychological data, are concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgement, and decision in the human mind or with a calculation aid such as pencil and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for general purpose computing components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For purposes of analysis, the types of abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
an interface apparatus that is configured to be connected for communication with a subject apparatus, the subject apparatus including one or a plurality of sensors (Claim 1)
an arithmetic operation apparatus connected for communication with the interface apparatus and the storage apparatus as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 1)
a computer as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 9)
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that is executable by the computer as implementing the steps of the abstract idea (Claim 10)
a selected estimation model as implementing the step of estimating the psychological characteristic of the subject
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the interface apparatus, paras. [0020]-[0022] disclose:
In the following description, “interface apparatus” may be one or more interface devices. One or more interface devices may be at least one of the following interface devices. An I/O interface apparatus that is one or more input/output (I/O) interface devices.
An input/output (I/O) interface device is an interface device for at least one of the I/O device and a remote display computer. The I/O interface device for the display computer may be a communication interface device. At least one I/O device may be a user interface device, for example, an input device such as a keyboard and a pointing device, or an output device such as a display device.
A communication interface apparatus that is one or more communication interface devices. One or more communication interface devices may be one or more communication interface devices of the same type (for example, one or more network interface cards (NIC)) or two or more communication interface devices of different types (for example, an NIC and a host bus adapter (HBA)).
Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element using normal input devices as sensors (e.g., microphone, camera, keyboard), all of which are functioning in their ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Regarding the subject apparatus including one or more sensors, para. [0032] discloses “The subject apparatus 130 is an information processing terminal, for example, a computer such as a personal computer or a smartphone of a subject 101. The subject apparatus 130 includes: one or a plurality of sensors that measure a behavior of the subject 101; and a display device 112. One or more sensors are formed of, for example, a camera 102, an input device 111 (for example, a keyboard and a pointing device), or a microphone 11. In place of or in addition to the input device 111, the display device 112 may be a touch panel”. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device such as a smartphone or PC using normal input devices as sensors (e.g., microphone, camera, keyboard), all of which are functioning in their ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Regarding the arithmetic processing apparatus, specification para. [0035] discloses “the arithmetic operation apparatus 115 is a processor and executes a computer program” where para. [0036] discloses “a “processor” may be one or more processor devices. At least one processor device may typically be a microprocessor device such as a central processing unit (CPU). However, the processor device may be a processor device of other type such as a graphics processing unit (GPU). At least one processor device may be a single core or a multi-core. At least one processor device may be a processor core.” Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose processor functioning in its ordinary capacity to implement the steps of the abstract idea.
Regarding the computer (Claim 9), no particulars are disclosed. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computer functioning in its ordinary capacity (paras. [0032], [0033]).
Regarding a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that is executable by the computer (Claim 10), no particulars are disclosed. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing instructions being executed by a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity (paras. [0027]).
Regarding the selected estimation model, per paras. [0072], [0096], this is understood to amount to a machine learning model or multiple equation regression model applied on a general purpose computer. The broad recitation of a machine learning model, in this case to estimate a psychological characteristic of a subject, only amounts to using the machine learning model as a tool to apply data to a model and generate a result (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites:
receive measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by the one or more sensors from the subject apparatus via the interface apparatus
a storage apparatus storing a first estimation model in which weighting coefficients for behavioral features change over time, and a second estimation model in which respective weighting coefficients for behavioral features correspond to respective time slots for evaluating a subject, the first estimation model requiring more calculation resources than the second estimation model
Claims 9 and 10 additionally recite:
receiving measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by one or more sensors from a subject apparatus;
The above elements of “receive/receiving measurement data…” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering; they serve as pre-solution activity to gather data for use in the claimed process.
The element of a storage apparatus storing a first estimation model in which weighting coefficients for behavioral features change over time, and a second estimation model in which respective weighting coefficients for behavioral features correspond to respective time slots for evaluating a subject, the first estimation model requiring more calculation resources than the second estimation model, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the function of storing the first and second estimation models is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of generating and outputting estimated psychological characteristic data for a person, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
These elements in Sections A and B above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claims 1, 9 and 10 only recite the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the elements of the arithmetic operation apparatus is configured to receive measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by one or more sensors from the subject apparatus via the interface apparatus, and, receiving measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by one or more sensors from a subject apparatus, only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. The element of “a storage apparatus storing a first estimating model… and a second estimation model…” only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The elements of the arithmetic operation apparatus is configured to receive measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by one or more sensors from the subject apparatus via the interface apparatus, and, receiving measurement data related to a behavior performed by a subject and based on measurement performed by one or more sensors only amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing/retrieving data in memory, which have been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The element of a storage apparatus storing a first estimation model in which weighting coefficients for behavioral features change over time, and a second estimation model in which respective weighting coefficients for behavioral features correspond to respective time slots for evaluating a subject, the first estimation model requiring more calculation resources than the second estimation model only amounts to storing/retrieving data in memory, which have been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims:
Claim 2 recites wherein the one or more of sensors includes a camera and the measurement data includes moving image data that is data expressing a moving image in which the subject imaged by the camera appears, which further narrows the scope of independent claim 1. Claim 2 additionally recites recognizing a region of a head itself of the subject or a region that includes the head of the subject from the moving image data, and setting an enhancement amount of a behavioral feature calculated with respect to the head region larger than an enhancement amount of a behavioral feature calculated related to a region other than the head region by applying a greater weight to the behavioral feature calculated with respect to the head region when estimating the psychological characteristic, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as they are behaviors that could be performed by one person observing another. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, recitation of “the arithmetic operation apparatus” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites limitations pertaining to a related behavior value that is a value of a related behavior is acquired from related behavioral data of the related behavior, which is also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, a person could acquire/manipulate data. Claim 4 also recites limitations pertaining to determining the enhancement amount of the first behavioral feature based on determining larger movements of the subject is based on at least one of an average value, a standard deviation, a median value, a third quartile and a maximum value of a time series of the related behavior value, and determining the enhancement amount of the second behavioral feature behavior of the subject is based on at least one of a minimum value, a first quartile, and a second quartile of a time series of related behavior value, which further narrows the scope. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the related behavioral data is data indicating a length of an answer time from a point of time that a question is provided to the subject to a point of time that an answer to the question is given, and the one or more behavioral feature include a behavioral feature based on the answer time or an amount of change in the answer time, which further narrows the scope. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the one or more sensors include a camera, the measurement data includes moving image data that is data expressing a moving image in which the subject imaged by the camera appears, which further narrow the scope. Claim 6 also recites limitations pertaining to a related behavior value that is a value of a related behavior is acquired from related behavioral data, the behavioral feature is acquired from a time series of related behavior value, and determining, for each measurement window range of the moving image data, whether a change in a related behavior value of consecutive frames constituting the measurement window range satisfies a condition, detecting a related behavior value satisfying the condition as an outlier when a result of the determination is true, and correcting the detected outlier, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as they are behaviors that could be performed by one person observing another. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, recitation of “the arithmetic operation apparatus” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites limitations pertaining to estimating, for each of the measurement window ranges, a standard deviation of each related behavior value with respect to a median value within the measurement window range, determining whether or not the related behavior value that is over N times larger than the standard deviation from the median value is within the measurement window range (N being a predetermined value larger than 1), and in a case where the determination result is an outlier that is a true related behavior value, replacing the outlier with the median value, which are also certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behaviors, as they are behaviors that could be performed by individual performing statistical calculations/analysis. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, recitation of “the arithmetic operation apparatus” only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites limitations pertaining to wherein the measurement data is data relating to a behavior performed by the subject in a self-interview that is an interview where a virtual robot is an interviewer and the subject is a person who receives an interview and measured by the one or more sensors, which further narrows the scope. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1, 2, 4-10 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
Please note: When referencing page numbers of Applicant’s response, references are to page numbers as printed.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
The rejections of Claims 1, 9 and 10, and corresponding dependent claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 9 and 10.
Rejections under 35 USC 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-10 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea (page 12)
Regarding (A), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (an abstract idea) if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of personal behaviors that a person or person, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to estimate a psychological characteristic of the subject and provide an output of the estimated psychological characteristic data. The steps also Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a set of personal behaviors that a person or persons would follow to estimate and provide an indication of a psychological characteristic of a subject, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) also states that a claimed invention is directed to a mental process if the identified claim elements contain limitations that the human mind is equipped to perform. Abstract ideas that have been held to be practically performable in the human mind include collection/analysis of data, collection/comparison of data, and identifying/applying hair designs. The Examiner submits that Applicant’s claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas as they involve observation, evaluation, judgement, and decision-making. Because the identified features of the claim can be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself (page 15)
Regarding (B), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Paras. [0032]-[0036]). Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself that results from the implementation of Applicant’s claim.
Regarding remarks beginning at page 15 pertaining to two different estimation models (first paragraph) and remarks directed to paras. [0062]-[0064], Examiner respectfully submits that the limitation pertaining to selecting a model to use falls within the scope of the abstract idea as a person can make a selection of a model based on an arithmetic load/processor usage rate. Based on the selection, the computer utilizes the selected model to apply the abstract idea: either a first model which requires more calculation resources is used to perform the estimation step, or a second model which utilizes less calculation resources is used to perform the estimation step. Examiner submits that using a threshold to select which model to use based on arithmetic load (or processor usage) necessarily lowers the calculation resources by virtue of selecting the lower-calculation-resource model rather than the first (higher calculation model) resource. The functioning of the computer itself has not changed; there is no indication that the computer itself is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power; the computer is merely utilizing a particular model. Examiner submits that any purported improvements may be improvements to the abstract idea; per MPEP 2106.05(a), this is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant has not identified, nor can Examiner find, evidence of how the computer’s processing capabilities themselves are improved. Because there is no improvement to the function of the computer, a practical application is not present. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding remarks at bottom of page 18 pertaining to “technical solution to a technical problem of selecting an optimal estimation model to use for estimating a psychological characteristic of a subject without overloading the arithmetic apparatus/computer that will execute the model”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant identified, any technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Examiner maintains the position that selecting a model based on arithmetic load falls within the scope of the abstract idea. Selecting a model that requires less resources inherently reduces the load on the arithmetic apparatus/computer. Further, Examiner is unable to find any problems disclosed by the specification pertaining to the technological environment to which the claim is confined (a computer); the problem disclosed at para. [0008], Examiner submits that the ability to estimate the psychological characteristic of a subject without making the subject perform a dedicated behavior is not an improvement provided by one or more additional elements.
Regarding integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, please see 2106.04(d)(II) which states, “The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h)”, and MPEP 2106.05(a) which states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Applicant has not provided, nor can Examiner find evidence of, how any of the additional elements identified above in main 101 analysis section are providing an improvement over prior art systems. The additional elements identified above are understood to be computing components functioning in their normal operating capacity, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea (page 19)
Regarding (C), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues at bottom of page 19, “Applicant's claims recite meaningful unconventional elements that amount to
significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, Applicant's claims 1, 9,
and 10, as presented herein, include specific recitations directed to other than what
is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field”. However, Applicant has not cited to, nor can Examiner find, evidence in Applicant’s specification regarding how the combination of additional elements provides an inventive concept that is not well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Regarding remarks directed to BASCOM, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant application and claims are analogous to BASCOM. See MPEP 2106.06(b). The claims in BASCOM were found to be eligible because they presented a technology-based improvement to methods in which web filtering was performed which overcame disadvantages with prior art systems disclosed in the specification by using a non-conventional arrangement of web filters (e.g., additional elements). Unlike BASCOM, Applicant has not provided evidence in the specification as originally filed to demonstrate how the claimed invention provides a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements.
Regarding remarks at bottom of page 21 continuing to page 22, and particularly, Applicant’s remarks at page 22 “The above-emphasized additional elements of Applicant’s claim 1…”, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant has presented Claim 1 its entirety, including limitations falling within the scope of the abstract idea. This is not persuasive for identifying how additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding remarks at page 22 pertaining to arithmetic load being smaller than a threshold, Examiner submits that this has already been discussed with respect to (B); please see above. At page 21-22, Applicant appears to be arguing the limitations falling within the scope of the abstract idea (e.g., generating related behavioral data). Examiner submits that a “specific technique” falls within the scope of the abstract idea and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that the “ordered combination” pertains to additional elements. An “ordered combination” of specific steps isn’t enough if they’re all within the abstract idea and merely implemented by generic computing elements or software. MPEP 2106.05(I)(B).
These arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding remarks directed to deponent claims at page 24: The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant has not offered specific arguments other than to assert that the dependent claims ultimately depend from Claim 1 and are patient eligible at least due to their dependency from an allowable base claim, which is not persuasive. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC 101.
For all of the above reasons, the rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-10 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the independent claims. A search of publicly available prior art fails to yield a reference or combination of references that makes the claimed combination obvious when considered as a whole. The rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-10 under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20240260871, teaching on a psychological trait estimation system and method
US Publication 20240386343, teaching on a character traits estimation system and method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights