DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-14 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of October 25, 2024. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. The instant application is a national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT International Application No. PCT/JP2023/012783, filed on March 29, 2023, which claims for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application number 2022-072089 (JP), filed April 26, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: --determines-- should be inserted to replace “sets” at all locations to maintain consistency of terminology throughout the claims. Claim 1 refers to determining the timing, not setting the timing. Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an information processing apparatus comprising…an acquisition part that acquires…” recited in claims 1-12.
“an information processing apparatus comprising…a classification part that determines…” recited in claims 1-12.
“an information processing apparatus comprising…a determination part that determines…” recited in claims 1-12
“an information processing apparatus comprising…a notification part that provides…” recited in claims 1-12
“further comprising a changing part that…” (claim 12)
“an information processing apparatus comprising…an acquisition part that acquires…” recited in claim 14.
“an information processing apparatus comprising…a classification part that determines…” recited in claim 14.
“an information processing apparatus comprising…a notification part that provides…” recited in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-14 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(s) 13 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 1-12 and 14 is/are drawn to apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-14 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) 13 and 14) recites/describes the following steps;
acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user;
determines a classification of the user by using the personal data;
determines a timing at which information about a service offered to the user is provided as notification, the timing corresponding to a relationship between the classification and the service; and
provides the information about the service to the user at the timing
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining a classification of a user based at least in part using acquired personal data associated with the user, determining a timing to provide information (e.g., advertisement) about services offered to the user based on the classification and the service(s), and providing the information to the user at the determined timing, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior). 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 of “acquires…determines…determines…provides…”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing one or more concepts in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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) 13 and 14 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 an acquisition part that… a classification part that… a determination part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 1)
“executed by a processor” (claim 13)
“an information processing apparatus comprising an acquisition part that… a classification part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 14)
“wherein the acquisition part…” (claim 2)
“wherein the classification part…” (claims 3, 4, 8, and 9)
“wherein the determination part…” (claims 5, 6, 7)
“wherein the notification part…” (claims 10 and 11)
“a changing part that…” (claim 12)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing apparatus comprising an acquisition part that… a classification part that… a determination part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 1) and/or “executed by a processor” (claim 13) and/or “an information processing apparatus comprising an acquisition part that… a classification part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 14) and/or “wherein the acquisition part…” (claim 2) and/or “wherein the classification part…” (claims 3, 4, 8, and 9) and/or “wherein the determination part…” (claims 5, 6, 7) and/or “wherein the notification part…” (claims 10 and 11) and/or “a changing part that…” (claim 12) 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 published specification at paragraph [0023] “The information processing apparatus 1 is a computer…” and paragraphs [0032]-[0035] “ The information processing apparatus 1 may be configured by cloud computing using a set of computer resources. The storage 11 is a storage medium including a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), a hard disk drive, or the like. The storage 11 has stored thereon in advance programs to be executed by the control part 12…The control part 12 includes an acquisition part 121, a classification part 122, a determination part 123, a notification part 124, a recording part 125, and a changing part 126. The control part 12 is a processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit), and functions as the acquisition part 121, the classification part 122, the determination part 123, the notification part 124, the recording part 125, and the changing part 126 by executing the programs stored in the storage 11. At least some of the functions of the control part 12 may be realized by the control part 12 executing programs to be executed through the network.”). 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 element(s) of “acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user” (claims 1 and 13) and/or “provides the information about the service to the user…” (claims 1 and 13) and/or “acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user and measurement data generated by measuring activities of the user” (claim 14) and/or “provides information about a service offered to the user…” (claim 14), 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 published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help insure the timing of distribution of information associated with end-of-life or after-life services can better match (e.g., are more suitable for) a user’s particular circumstances (e.g., personal and/or health circumstances) (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0003]-[004] & [0031] & [0052]-[0053] & [0067]-[0068] & [0077]). These are non-technical subjective personal and/or 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 process for determining the timing at which to present information to a user).
Each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims other than those identified above as being “additional” elements in these claims 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 3 recites “wherein the classification part calculates an evaluation coefficient from values of the personal data and determines the classification corresponding to the calculated evaluation coefficient”. The underlined portion of this claim is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 3. 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.
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 an acquisition part that… a classification part that… a determination part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 1) and/or “executed by a processor” (claim 13) and/or “an information processing apparatus comprising an acquisition part that… a classification part that…and a notification part that…” (claim 14) and/or “wherein the acquisition part…” (claim 2) and/or “wherein the classification part…” (claims 3, 4, 8, and 9) and/or “wherein the determination part…” (claims 5, 6, 7) and/or “wherein the notification part…” (claims 10 and 11) and/or “a changing part that…” (claim 12) 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 element(s) of “acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user” (claims 1 and 13) and/or “provides the information about the service to the user” (claims 1 and 13) and/or “acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user and measurement data generated by measuring activities of the user” (claim 14) and/or “provides information about a service offered to the user …” (claim 14), 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 additional 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 additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising/marketing and/or health management systems . 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, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
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 2 and 4 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 Claim 2 recites “the classification part determines the classification in each of the plurality of services using one or a plurality of types of the personal data that are different among a plurality of the services” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 suggests that the classification part determines a classification of the user in general, not a classification of the user in a service, let alone in each of a plurality of services. It is unclear how a user could be said to be classified in a service, when there is a relationship between the classification and the service. Furthermore, it is clear from Applicant’s disclosure that user classification is not a classification in a service. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the "the plurality of services” limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only refers to “a service offered to the user”, not a plurality of services. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the classification part determines the classification in each of the plurality of services using one or a plurality of types of the personal data that are different among a plurality of the services” will be interpreted as being “the classification part determines the classification using one or a plurality of types of the personal data that are different among a plurality of services.”
v Claim 4 refers to "the plurality of the services." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only refers to “a service offered to the user”, not a plurality of services. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the plurality of the services” will be interpreted as being “a plurality of services.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
v Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (U.S. PG Pub No. 2018/0113986, April 26, 2018 - hereinafter "Zhu”)
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Zhu teaches an information processing apparatus, and an information processing method executed by a processor ([0372]-[0376] “computing device which can be used to realize a specialized system implementing the present teaching…may be a general purpose computer…may be implemented on a computer such as computer 3700, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof…”) and comprising;
an acquisition part that acquires personal data indicating an attribute of a user ([0119] “…does so based on both user's data 835, which includes both general information about the user as well as specific health/medical information of the user. General information about the user includes, but not limited to, personal and medical identifications of the user, birth date, age, gender, weight, height, contact information, etc. Specific information related to the person's health or medical related information such as medical history, family members' medical history, past/current medical conditions, general medical information such as medicine/food allergies, blood type, past operations and details thereof, etc. may be stored in the real time health monitor 210 and may be retrieved when needed” – system acquired personal data indicating an attribute of a user (e.g., age, gender, height, medical history, etc.), [0191] “receives the monitored data/user data either directly available from the real time health monitor 210 (when it resides on the real time health monitor 210) or from the cloud 260 (when it resides in the backend).,,,also receives different types of information from other sources 1030, such as information from a user database 1040, health/medical history database 1050, . . . the user database 1040 may include user's demographic data (which sometimes affect health condition classification), occupation related information (e.g., intensive physical labor work, normal work schedule is night shift and sleep during the day), different personal preferences (e.g., foods, drink, etc.), allergies, etc..”, [0372]-[0376] “computing device which can be used to realize a specialized system implementing the present teaching…may be a general purpose computer…may be implemented on a computer such as computer 3700, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof…” – software executing on one or more processors to perform this functionality amounts to the acquisition part)
a classification part that determines a classification of the user by using the personal data; ([0191]-[0192] “health condition determiner 840 for model based health condition classification based on continuously monitored/measured user health information…health condition determiner 840 is connected with data from different sources in order to appropriately classify the health condition of a person based on the received monitored data (including health data and vital signs). The online health condition determiner 840 receives the monitored data/user data…To facilitate classification, the online health condition determiner 840 also receives different types of information from other sources 1030, such as information from a user database 1040, health/medical history database 1050, . . . , and possibly some general knowledge database 1060….user specific information, health data/vital signs monitored by the real time health monitor 210, and possibly some estimated health condition classifications. The user database 1040 may include other types of information not present in the in situ user health log 845 but likely relevant to the classification of health conditions. For example, the user database 1040 may include user's demographic data (which sometimes affect health condition classification), occupation related information (e.g., intensive physical labor work, normal work schedule is night shift and sleep during the day), different personal preferences (e.g., foods, drink, etc.), allergies, etc.. Similarly, although the in situ user health log 845 may include health data/vital signs monitored by the real time health monitor 210, the health/vital history database 1050 may contain additional information collected from other sources that will be otherwise also useful in health condition classifications. Examples of such additional information may be gathered from doctors' offices, hospitals, pharmacies, or medical results from, e.g., job related check-up…” – the system determines classified the user’s health condition(s) using at least in part the personal data, [0081] “capable of continuously classifying a person's health condition into different classes based on trained models, by measuring/gathering various vital signs as well as health data of a user….The continuously classified health condition is transmitted, e.g., with the monitored health related information (including monitored vital signs, health data, as well as other information), to the cloud to…provide suitable online health care assistance. Such online health assistance includes different level of services, determined based on the health conditions classified automatically based on the monitored health information. Different levels of services may include, but not limited to, (1) providing general health information when the classification of the monitored data indicates that the person is in a healthy condition, (2) caution the person when the classification of the monitored data reveals a decline in health condition or a trend towards a less desirable health direction by, e.g., suggesting measures on how to maintain a healthy life style, (3) alerting the person when classification of the monitored data indicate that the person may be developing some”, see also [0089]-[0091] & [0119] & [0195]-[0198] for classification of health conditions as well as severity, [0372]-[0376] “computing device which can be used to realize a specialized system implementing the present teaching…may be a general purpose computer…may be implemented on a computer such as computer 3700, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof…” – software executing on one or more processors to perform this functionality amounts to the classification part)
a determination part that determines a timing at which information about a service offered to the user is provided as notification, the timing corresponding to a relationship between the classification and the service; and ([0096]-[0097] “Responding to the health condition classifications, the online health assistance information may provide different types of information aimed to assist the person being monitored by the real time health monitor 210 to address health related issues. The timing to receive the online health assistance information may be real time, periodic, or as needed, which is determined, e.g., based on various considerations. For example, when the health condition is classified as a health emergency situation, the online health assistance information may be sent in real time to, e.g., asking the person to take some medication immediately or carrying out a rescue. If the health condition classification is that the person is healthy…will be sent one month from the previous one sent to the person…before the blood pressure level exceeds a medically defined threshold that is considered abnormal, the content of the online health assistance information 240 may include recommended approaches to take to improve life style (e.g., diet, exercise, sleep, etc.)…very close to or exceed the threshold, the online health assistance information 240 may include content on recommended local physician to visit or even the means to make an appointment with the recommended physician. If a person is in an emergency situation, the online health assistance information 240 may include content such as voice instruction from a physician directing the person or nearby family members to do, e.g., taking medicine or lying down, so that the person is safer until the rescue arrive” – therefore the timing at which information about a service (e.g., medical consultation, medicine taking, etc.) is offered to the user is provided at a notification corresponding to a relationship between the classification and the service (e.g., the user should be notified immediately to book an appointment with a recommended physician based on the type of service/doctor and the classification of the user’s health condition and severity, [0121] “Once the user health condition classification, together with user's location and user's information, is sent to the cloud 260, the communication unit 850 subsequently receives, via wired or wireless network connection, online health assistance information 240…. health assistance information 240 is determined according to the health condition classification derived by the online health condition determiner 840 based on the monitored health related information….when a person is in a normal health condition, the online health assistance information received may not be a real time feedback but rather general health intelligence sent on a timed schedule determined by, e.g., the terms of the subscribed service. If the classified health condition is sub-healthy which the real time health monitor 210 determines that it warrants a warning, e.g., the real time health monitor 210 detects that a particular disease may be developing (e.g., type II diabetes), the received online health assistance information may be a real time feedback with a health warning report and recommendations of specialist for the person to visit to have a check. To educate the person on the potentially newly developed health condition, the online assistance information may also include health intelligence on the particular developing disease to help the person to better understand the health issue and ways to address.”, see also [0128]-[0134] & [0290]-[0291] & [0356]-[0365] for various discussions about the timing of information associated with services being determined based on the user’s classifications, [0372]-[0376] “computing device which can be used to realize a specialized system implementing the present teaching…may be a general purpose computer…may be implemented on a computer such as computer 3700, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof…” – software executing on one or more processors to perform this functionality amounts to the determination part)
a notification part that provides the information about the service to the user at the timing ([0121] “the communication unit 850 …different types of the online health assistance information may be delivered to a person when the person monitored by the real time health monitor 210 is in different health conditions. For example, when a person is in a normal health condition, the online health assistance information received may not be a real time feedback but rather general health intelligence sent on a timed schedule determined by, e.g., the terms of the subscribed service. If the classified health condition is sub-healthy which the real time health monitor 210 determines that it warrants a warning, e.g., the real time health monitor 210 detects that a particular disease may be developing (e.g., type II diabetes), the received online health assistance information may be a real time feedback with a health warning report and recommendations of specialist for the person to visit to have a check. To educate the person on the potentially newly developed health condition, the online assistance information may also include health intelligence on the particular developing disease to help the person to better understand the health issue and ways to address” – therefore the system provides the information about the service to the user at the timing, [0133] “the communication unit 850 receives, at 844, online health assistance information 240 from the cloud 260 or a backend health service provider. When such received information is forwarded to the health assistance information presentation unit 825, the health assistance information presentation unit 825 determines, at 844, the mode(s) and style to be used to deliver the received online health assistance information to the user.”, see also [0149] & [0153] & [0095]-[0097], [0372]-[0376] “computing device which can be used to realize a specialized system implementing the present teaching…may be a general purpose computer…may be implemented on a computer such as computer 3700, via its hardware, software program, firmware, or a combination thereof…” – software executing on one or more processors to perform this functionality amounts to the notification part)
With respect to claim 2, Zhu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1;
wherein the acquisition part acquires a plurality of types of the personal data, and ([0119] “…does so based on both user's data 835, which includes both general information about the user as well as specific health/medical information of the user. General information about the user includes, but not limited to, personal and medical identifications of the user, birth date, age, gender, weight, height, contact information, etc. Specific information related to the person's health or medical related information such as medical history, family members' medical history, past/current medical conditions, general medical information such as medicine/food allergies, blood type, past operations and details thereof, etc. may be stored in the real time health monitor 210 and may be retrieved when needed” – plurality of types of personal data (e.g., age, gender, height, medical history, allergies etc.), [0191] “different types of information…may include user's demographic data (which sometimes affect health condition classification), occupation related information (e.g., intensive physical labor work, normal work schedule is night shift and sleep during the day), different personal preferences (e.g., foods, drink, etc.), allergies, etc”)
the classification part determines the classification in each of the plurality of services using one or a plurality of types of the personal data that are different among a plurality of the services ([0191]-[0192] “health condition determiner 840 for model based health condition classification based on continuously monitored/measured user health information…health condition determiner 840 is connected with data from different sources in order to appropriately classify the health condition of a person based on the received monitored data (including health data and vital signs). The online health condition determiner 840 receives the monitored data/user data…To facilitate classification, the online health condition determiner 840 also receives different types of information from other sources 1030, such as information from a user database 1040, health/medical history database 1050, . . . , and possibly some general knowledge database 1060….user specific information, health data/vital signs monitored by the real time health monitor 210, and possibly some estimated health condition classifications. The user database 1040 may include other types of information not present in the in situ user health log 845 but likely relevant to the classification of health conditions. For example, the user database 1040 may include user's demographic data (which sometimes affect health condition classification), occupation related information (e.g., intensive physical labor work, normal work schedule is night shift and sleep during the day), different personal preferences (e.g., foods, drink, etc.), allergies, etc.. Similarly, although the in situ user health log 845 may include health data/vital signs monitored by the real time health monitor 210, the health/vital history database 1050 may contain additional information collected from other sources that will be otherwise also useful in health condition classifications. Examples of such additional information may be gathered from doctors' offices, hospitals, pharmacies, or medical results from, e.g., job related check-up…” – the system determines classified the user’s health condition(s) using at least in part the personal data, [0097] & [0167] different types of personal data are used to classify the user’s health condition/severity for different services (e.g., heart related services or blood pressure related services), [0201]-[0203] “each of the individual vital sign scores may be computed according to a corresponding range of the underlying vital sign. Such ranges may be configured dynamically with respect to various factors such as the person's age, gender, weight, physical condition (such as handicap), and the overall health.”, [0081] “capable of continuously classifying a person's health condition into different classes based on trained models, by measuring/gathering various vital signs as well as health data of a user….The continuously classified health condition is transmitted, e.g., with the monitored health related information (including monitored vital signs, health data, as well as other information), to the cloud to…provide suitable online health care assistance. Such online health assistance includes different level of services, determined based on the health conditions classified automatically based on the monitored health information. Different levels of services may include, but not limited to, (1) providing general health information when the classification of the monitored data indicates that the person is in a healthy condition, (2) caution the person when the classification of the monitored data reveals a decline in health condition or a trend towards a less desirable health direction by, e.g., suggesting measures on how to maintain a healthy life style, (3) alerting the person when classification of the monitored data indicate that the person may be developing some”, see also [0089]-[0091] & [0119] & [0195]-[0198] for classification of health conditions as well as severity)
With respect to claim 3, Zhu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1;
wherein the classification part calculates an evaluation coefficient from values of the personal data and determines the classification corresponding to the calculated evaluation coefficient ([0212]-[0214] “In estimating the health condition based on health data, the health raw score determiner 1505 takes the individual health scores from the health score generator 1320 (FIG. 13) as input and computes the health raw score based on the individual health scores. In some embodiments, the health raw score may be computed as a sum of all individual health scores. In some embodiments, the sum of individual health scores may be a weighted sum with weights applied to different individual health scores. Weights used may be determined general health knowledge or adapted according to certain information of each person. Accordingly, weights applied to the same health factor in connections with different people may differ and determined based on information specifically related to the person, e.g., retrieved from, e.g., the user database 1040 and the health/medical history database 1050. Based on the health raw score (HS), the health index estimator 1510 computes the health index (HI). In some embodiments, HI=1/(1+HS). However, it can also be computed using any other formula…Similarly, the weights applied to different vital sign scores may be different and determined based on information specifically related to the person, e.g., retrieved from, e.g., the user database 1040 and the health/medical history database 1050. Accordingly, weights applied to the same vital sign scores of different people may vary. In computing the vital raw score, the level of risks of the person with high risk diseases may be estimated, as shown in FIG. 15A, with respect to various measures 1530 such as Perfusion Index, Hemoglobin, glucose, ECG, heart rate variation, medical history, existing health conditions, and certain external conditions. The computed VS may be weighed against those estimated high risk diseases…then be used to classify a person's health into one or more different health condition classes” – therefore the classification part calculates weights and/or individual scores based on values of the personal data (i.e., an evaluation coefficient from values of the personal data) and determines the classification corresponding to the calculated evaluation coefficient, see also [0215]-[0217] & [0242]-[0256] & [0262])
With respect to claim 4, Zhu teaches the apparatus according to claim 3;
wherein the classification part calculates a plurality of the evaluation coefficient that are different among the plurality of the services associated with the values of the personal data ([0212]-[0214] “In estimating the health condition based on health data, the health raw score determiner 1505 takes the individual health scores from the health score generator 1320 (FIG. 13) as input and computes the health raw score based on the individual health scores. In some embodiments, the health raw score may be computed as a sum of all individual health scores. In some embodiments, the sum of individual health scores may be a weighted sum with weights applied to different individual health scores. Weights used may be determined general health knowledge or adapted according to certain information of each person. Accordingly, weights applied to the same health factor in connections with different people may differ and determined based on information specifically related to the person, e.g., retrieved from, e.g., the user database 1040 and the health/medical history database 1050. Based on the health raw score (HS), the health index estimator 1510 computes the health index (HI). In some embodiments, HI=1/(1+HS). However, it can also be computed using any other formula…Similarly, the weights applied to different vital sign scores may be different and determined based on information specifically related to the person, e.g., retrieved from, e.g., the user database 1040 and the health/medical history database 1050. Accordingly, weights applied to the same vital sign scores of different people may vary. In computing the vital raw score, the level of risks of the person with high risk diseases may be estimated, as shown in FIG. 15A, with respect to various measures 1530 such as Perfusion Index, Hemoglobin, glucose, ECG, heart rate variation, medical history, existing health conditions, and certain external conditions. The computed VS may be weighed against those estimated high risk diseases…then be used to classify a person's health into one or more different health condition classes” & [0218]-[0236] “using health data (e.g., h