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 1-10 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 1-10 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) an information processing device, which is within a statutory category (machine). Claim 10 recite(s) a program storage 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 processing device, comprising a goal setting unit configured to set a first goal for an exercise of a subject; an advice generation unit configured to generate a first advice for the first goal; an output unit configured to output the first goal and the first advice; a motivation estimation unit configured to estimate a motivation of the subject; and an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the motivation of the subject for the first goal, wherein the advice generation unit generates a second advice different from the first advice based on a result of the evaluation by the evaluation unit, and the output unit outputs the second advice” describe managing persona behaviors and interactions between people, bur for the recitation of generic processor, generic sensor. These steps of setting a goal for an exercise of a subject, generating/outputting the advice of the goal content, estimating and evaluating the results are the steps the healthcare provider prescribes to the patient when conducting the exercise plans to the users. 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 2-9 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, claims 2 through 9 include the limitations of goal setting, generating the advices, estimating the motivation, the exercise intensity, different states of goal setting which are directed to certain of organizing human activity for the same reasons as the independent claim.
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, 10 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 – an information device, a program storage medium, sensor unit, and a processor. The information device, a program-storage medium storing instructions, sensor unit, and a processor 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 0129). 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 outing the advice. 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.
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, 10 do 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, 10 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, 10 limit the use of a sensor, a processor, a computer, a storage 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 1-10 are rejected under 35USC101 as being held patent ineligible.
Claim 10 recites a program product comprising a storage medium having computer program code. The claims constitute computer programs representing computer listings per se (such as program codes). Such descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical "things". They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer- readable/storage medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element, which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer, that permits the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer storage medium typically covers form of non-transitory tangible medial and transitory propagating signal per se in when specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijted, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under35 U.S.C 101, Aug 24, 2009; p. 2
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by. Bissonnette et al. (US20220016480A1 hereinafter Bissonnette).
With respect to claim 1, Bissonnette teaches an information processing device, comprising:
a goal setting unit configured to set a first goal for an exercise of a subject (‘480; FIG 35: illustrating user interface presenting information pertaining to a first exercise of a baseline fitness test);
an advice generation unit configured to generate a first advice for the first goal (‘480; Para 0445: Initially a processing device (e.g., cloud-based computing system 16, computing device 15, or both) may filter users into their correct exercise levels) Then the processing device may determine what combination of exercises is appropriate for the users in beginning their training); ;
an output unit configured to output the first goal and the first advice (‘480; Para 0135: the one or more of machine learning models 60 may refer to model artifacts created, using training data that includes training inputs and corresponding target outputs (correct answers for respective training inputs), by the artificial intelligence engine 65 and/or the training engine 50. The training engine 50 may find patterns in the training data that map the training input to the target output (the answer to be predicted), and provide the machine learning models 60 that capture these patterns);
a motivation estimation unit configured to estimate a motivation of the subject (‘480; Para 0119: the virtual coach may provide tips on posture and form while performing an exercise or using the exercise machine. The virtual coach may provide motivational content, such as words of encouragement to the user. The virtual coach may be provided randomly during the video game and/or it may be based on input and/or data from the user and/or sensors); and
an evaluation unit configured to evaluate the motivation of the subject for the first goal: (‘480; Para 0445 As the users complete exercise sessions a machine learning model may learn the user's ability and tracks their progress, adjusts their exercises in exercise sessions accordingly, and determines when the users can advance to the next exercise level.), wherein
the advice generation unit generates a second advice different from the first advice based on a result of the evaluation by the evaluation unit (‘480; Para 0535: the exercise they are then performing may automatically increase 15% in intensity (rounded up to the nearest whole number) in one of the following dimensions, according to the exercise: 1. Number of Sets (Increase); 2. Number of Repetitions (Increase); 3. Hold Time (Increase); 4. Rest Time (Reduce); FIG. 36 illustrating a second exercise of a baseline fitness test), and
the output unit outputs the second advice (‘480; Para 0136: the training data may include various inputs (e.g., a physical activity goal, range of motion of users, user-reported pain level of users, user-reported difficulty levels of exercises, exercise information, levels of attainment, characteristics of users (e.g., age, weight, height, gender, procedures performed, condition of user, goals for outcomes of exercising, etc.), performance measurements, and the like) and mapped outputs. The mapped outputs may include an exercise plan composed on various exercise sessions each including various exercises, schedule of the exercise sessions, etc. In some embodiments, the training data may include other inputs (e.g., state of the exercise session, exercise, exercise machine 100; progress of the user; events; characteristics of the user; measurements received from sensors, etc.).
Claim 10 is rejected as the same reason with claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an exercise information acquiring unit configured to acquire information related to the exercise of the subject from a sensor attached to the subject, wherein the goal setting unit sets the first goal based on the information related to the exercise of the subject (‘480; Abstract; Para 0136).
With respect to claim 3, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an exercise information acquiring unit configured to acquire the information related to the exercise of the subject from a sensor attached to the subject, wherein the motivation estimation unit estimates the motivation of the subject based on the information related to the exercise of the subject (‘480; FIG 35; Para 0137).
With respect to claim 4, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the motivation estimation unit estimates the motivation of the subject based on a time when the subject performs the exercise, the number of times the subject performs the exercise, and an exercise intensity of the exercise performed by the subject, included in the information related to the exercise of the subject (‘480; Para 0224: number of times; Para 0230: responsive to receiving the feedback, the processing device may cause an intensity of the exercise to increase or decrease. For example, if the user says “too easy” the intensity of the exercise may be increased. If the user says “too hard”, the intensity of the exercise may be decreased.).
With respect to claim 5, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the motivation estimation unit estimates the motivation of the subject based on the first goal output to an external device and the number of times the subject views the first advice (480; Para 0224: number of times; Para 0230).
With respect to claim 6, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the goal setting unit sets a second goal different from the first goal based on a result of the evaluation (‘480; Para 0230-0231), and
the second advice is an advice for the second goal (‘480; FIG. 36-37).
With respect to claim 7, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 6, further comprising a determination unit configured to determine a difference between a current state of the subject and a state set by the first goal, wherein the goal setting unit sets the second goal based on a result of the evaluation performed by the evaluation unit based on the motivation of the subject and a result of the determination by the determination unit.
With respect to claim 8, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the goal setting unit sets a level of the second goal set when the motivation estimation unit estimates that the motivation of the subject is high to a level closer to a level of the first goal than a level of the second goal set when the motivation estimation unit estimates that the motivation of the subject is low (‘480; Para 0136).
With respect to claim 9, Bissonnette teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein
the determination unit determines whether the current state of the subject reaches a state of the second goal, based on information related to an exercise of the subject, the motivation estimation unit estimates the motivation of the subject based on a period required for the subject to achieve the second goal, the evaluation unit evaluates the motivation of the subject for the second goal, and the goal setting unit sets a third goal different from the second goal based on a result of the evaluation of the motivation by the evaluation unit (‘480; Paras 0049 through Para 0054).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210166579A1, Jun. 3, 2021, Kukita et al; Health Management device, health management method, and non-transitory recording medium storing program.
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