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
Claims 1-23 have been examined.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recite(s) a information support mechanism, which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 8 recite(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is within a statutory category (manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A (MPEP2106.04-.07), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
For claim 1, the limitations of “an information input support mechanism that allows text generative AI to generate guidance comments on a management item for a target person to be managed, the information input support mechanism comprising a processor, the processor being configured to: acquire target person data belonging to the target person to be managed; acquire guidance item data indicating a content of guidance that is offered in the guidance comments; create instruction commands that instruct the text generative AI to generate text based on the target person data and the acquired guidance item data; and provide the text generative AI with the created instruction commands” describes managing persona behaviors and interactions between people, bur for the recitation of generic processor, text generative Artificial Intelligence. These steps of acquiring patient data, generating text guidance content, creating instruction command are the steps the healthcare provider prescribes to the patient when conducting the plans to patients. These claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors and personal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer, then it falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, claims 2 through 5 include the limitations of storing, receiving a plurality of guidance items, acquiring guidance comment and creating instruction command generated text AI” which are directed to certain of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claim.
For claim 8, the limitation “instructions that allow text generative AI to generate guidance comments on a management item for a target person to be managed, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: create instruction commands that instruct the text generative AI to generate the guidance comments based on target person data belonging to the target person to be managed and guidance item data indicating a content of guidance that is offered in the guidance comments, both the target person data and the guidance item data having been acquired by the processor” describes managing persona behaviors and interactions between people, bur for the recitation of generic processor, text generative Artificial Intelligence. These steps of acquiring patient data, generating text guidance content, creating instruction command are the steps the healthcare provider communicates to the patient when conducting the care plans to patients. these claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behaviors and personal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer, then it falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim is directed toward at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim, as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP2106.04-07, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts also have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
For claims 1, 8 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a memory device/non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, an Artificial Intelligence, and a processing device to execute the instructions. The memory device/non-transitory computer-readable medium, the AI agent and processing device in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (Spec.; Para 0020). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recite the additional elements of a computing device for presenting guidance comment, creating instruction command. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it is simply adding a general purpose computer after the fact to the abstract idea, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to implement and monitor a care plan, a productivity, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1, 8 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. (The Examiner notes the mere recitation of a processor, memory, non-transitory medium does not take the claim out of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 8 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 6, 12, 18, 21-22 limit the use of a processor, a computer, a non-transitory medium, etc.... The specification merely describes the use of these computing components. The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using these computer devices as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Further the use of generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patient-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35USC101 as being held patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US20200242964A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wu teaches an information input support mechanism that allows text generative AI to generate guidance comments on a management item for a target person to be managed,
the information input support mechanism comprising a processor, the processor being configured to:
acquire target person data belonging to the target person to be managed (‘964; Para 0077: during the session, if the user is consulting how a diabetic patient should eat, the diet intention of the user may be deduced as acquiring diet knowledge of foods suitable for a diabetic patient. Accordingly, the chatbot may retrieve diet knowledge 552 involving food type or food list that is related to diabetes mellitus, as a diet suggestion to the user);
acquire guidance item data indicating a content of guidance that is offered in the guidance comments (‘964; Para 0051: The database 250 may comprise a session log 255. The session log 255 may comprise records of conversation contents in sessions between the chatbot and the user, such as, messages from the user, responses by the chatbot ; Para 0078);
create instruction commands that instruct the text generative AI to generate text based on the target person data and the acquired guidance item data (‘964; Para 0079: the diet intention may be product recommendation 546. For example, during the session, if the user is interested in or is asking information of low-sugar drinks, the diet intention of the user may be deduced as requiring recommendation of low-sugar products. Accordingly, the chatbot may determine product information 556 as a diet suggestion to the user. The product information 556 may be one or more low-sugar drink's names, such as, “Coke Zero”, “Diet Coke”, etc); and
provide the text generative AI with the created instruction commands (‘964; FIG. 6 illustrating displaying the complete instruction on chatbot).
Claim 8 is rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store data concerning a plurality of guidance items that has been previously prepared, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a selection of at least one guidance item from the previously prepared guidance items and acquire data concerning the at least one guidance item (‘964; Paras 0077-0078).
With respect to claim 3, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the target person data has a plurality of items, the memory is configured to store a set of options that has been previously prepared for a predetermined item of the plurality of items of the target person data, and the processor is further configured to receive a selection of an option from the set of options and acquire the target person data corresponding to the predetermined item (‘964; Para 0098: he chatbot may extract diet information, such as, concerned disease “diabetes mellitus” and food type “recommended foods for a diabetic patient”, from the message and the previous message. Meanwhile, the diet requirement of the user indicates that the health condition of the user is associated with diabetes mellitus).
With respect to claim 4, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the target person data from a target person information obtaining means for measuring or managing the target person data belonging to the target person to be managed (‘964; FIG 6A illustrating how to manage diabetic patient eat).
With respect to claim 5, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire text information data indicating formal aspects of the guidance comments to be generated by the text generative AI, and create the instruction commands based on the text information data (‘964; Abstract; ).
With respect to claim 6, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to create the instruction commands with priority given to the acquired guidance item data (‘964; Para 0029: the diet assistance provided by the chatbot to the user may be recipe recommendation, such as, existing recipes or newly-generated recipes. In some aspects, the diet assistance provided by the chatbot to the user may be cooking guidance, such as, a guidance of how to cook according to a recipe).
With respect to claim 7, Wu teaches the information input support mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the target person to be managed is a diabetic patient and the management item is diabetes (‘964; Paras 0077-0078).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diabetes and conversational agents: the AIDA project case study; Francesca Alloatti et al; Discover Artificial Intelligence (2021) 1:4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. 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.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686