CTNF 19/002,212 CTNF 88810 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAIL ACTION Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance , examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. Step 1 In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses three sets of claims: a system in claims 1-9 (i.e., a manufacture), a method in claim 10 (i.e., a process) and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium claim 11 (i.e., a manufacture). All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1. Step 2A Prong One The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significant more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “ estimating medical treatment information based on a plurality of preferences of the user ”. Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added): Claim 1: An information processing device comprising: a processing circuit configured to acquire a reply from a user, estimate medical treatment information including a plurality of preferences of the user regarding medical treatment on the basis of the reply, determine a response to the reply on the basis of the medical treatment information, and output the response via an output interface, wherein the processing circuit determines, as the response, at least one of a narrowed response, which is a response made to the reply from the user to narrow down the plurality of preferences, and an approval request to the user for each of the plurality of preferences . The bold portions of claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-9, and substantially also encompassed by claims 10 and 11. Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the steps to estimate medical treatment information based on a plurality of preferences of the user. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to certain performing of organizing human activity and mental processes, which is abstract idea. Prong Two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on computers (i.e. storage medium or processing circuit in claim 1, 10-11) or a user interface in claim 1), or merely using computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment for field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. Claim 1 recites using user’s reply to estimating medical treatment information based on a plurality of preferences of the user. Using input data to select a treatment for a user is a generic feature of user interface processing, which does not represent a technological improvement. The using of the computer and processing circuits does not add improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, which failed to enable the abstract idea to integrate into a practical application. The claims are drafted in a result-oriented fashion, without the requisite specificity needed to provide a nonabstract technological solution. The computing system and processing circuit with user interface are directed to the components of a system amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as presented. Step 2B Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1298. The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a processor, storage medium, and user interface (in claim 1 and 10-11). These additional elements are merely conventional computer, processing circuits and user interface. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known generic computer components performing conventional functions (e.g., a processing circuits performing a mental process). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims 1-9 are not patent eligible. Claims 10 and 11 recite similar limitations of claims 1-9, thus are abstract idea and not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20140074454 A1) in view of EDWARDS et al (US 20220172842 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses an information processing device [e.g. FIG. 1; electronic device] comprising: a processing circuit [e.g. FIG. 1 and 9-10; processors] configured to acquire a reply from a user [e.g. FIG. FIG. 3; 122], estimate medical treatment information [e.g. treatment plan or options] including a plurality of preferences of the user [e.g. FIG. 1 and 8; [0088]; identifying patients’ preferences and medical records; estimated cost based on insurance coverage] regarding medical treatment on the basis of the reply [e.g. FIG. 3-4; patient input and the responses from the virtual health assistant], determine a response to the reply on the basis of the medical treatment information [e.g. FIG. 2-3; response from the virtual health assistant], and output the response via an output interface [FIG. 2-6; GUI; response displayed], wherein the processing circuit determines, as the response, at least one of a narrowed response [e.g. [0031]; where to inject insulin based on where the last injection was performed for a patient with diabetes], and an approval request to the user for each of the plurality of preferences [e.g. the response of the virtual health assistant is to determine which location is appropriate for the next insulin injection]. It is noted that Brown differs to the present invention in that Brown fails to explicitly disclose the detail response to the reply from the use. However, EDWARDS teaches the well-known concept of a processing circuit [e.g. FIG. 17; processor] determines, as the response, at least one of a narrowed response [e.g. FIG. 2-4; an initial recommendation like swimming or adjusting insulin treatment], which is a response [e.g. 404; recommendations; FIG. 5-7] made to the reply from the user to narrow down the plurality of preferences [e.g. 402; [0038-0042]; FIG. 15; user’s preferences]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 2, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose when a series of dialogues in which the user replies to the response is repeated [e.g. Brown: FIG. 2-5 and 8; EDWARDS: FIG. 5-7 and 15-16], the processing circuit determines the response to the most recent reply on the basis of a plurality of replies acquired in the repeated dialogues [e.g. Brown: [0031]; where to inject insulin based on where the last injection was performed for a patient with diabetes]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 3, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the processing circuit determines the response to the most recent reply on the basis of an attribute of the user in addition to the plurality of replies [e.g. Brown: FIG. 2-5 and 8; EDWARDS: FIG. 5-7, 12 and15-16; a recommendation based on the user's glucose level for aerobic exercises based on the user’s time and glucose level]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well- known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 4, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the processing circuit determines the response to the most recent reply to be either the narrowed response or an approval request to the user on the basis of the attribute of the user and at least one of a reply of the user to the narrowed response and a reply of the user to the approval request to the user [e.g. Brown: FIG. 2-5 and 8; EDWARDS: FIG. 5-7, 12 and15-16; a recommendation based on the user's glucose level for aerobic exercises based on the user’s time and glucose level]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 5, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the processing circuit sets as the response a summary report [e.g. Brown: FIG. 3; 302; EDWARDS: FIG. 3] in which the plurality of preferences are listed and in which an object [e.g. selecting radio buttons] is disposed that allows the user to select whether to approve some or all of the plurality of preferences. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 6, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the processing circuit acquires an operation of the user on the object disposed in the summary report as a reply of the user to the approval request to the user [e.g. Brown: FIG. 3; user selects to take walking challenge; EDWARDS: FIG. 3E]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well- known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 7, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the processing circuit, when the medical treatment information is estimated, calculates a predetermined index [e.g. EDWARDS: FIG. 2-3; glucose levels] for each of the plurality of preferences, and selects matters to be included in the summary report from among the plurality of preferences on the basis of the predetermined index for each of the plurality of preferences [e.g. EDWARDS: FIG. 12; [0089]; the user's glucose level for aerobic, anaerobic, and mixed exercises, respectively]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 8, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the plurality of preferences have a hierarchical structure [e.g. EDWARDS: FIG. 2], and the processing circuit selects preferences to be included in the summary report from among the plurality of preferences on the basis of the predetermined index for each of the plurality of preferences and the hierarchical structure [e.g. EDWARDS: FIG. 2-3; 7 and 9-12]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 9, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose the plurality of preferences have a hierarchical structure, and the processing circuit selects the two preferences [e.g. aerobic, anaerobic, and mixed exercises] on the basis of the hierarchical structure when the narrowed response includes a comparison of at least two preferences among the plurality of preferences [e.g. EDWARDS: FIG. 2-3; 7 and 9-12]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Virtual Healthcare Assistant system disclosed by Brown to exploit the well-known planning for and performing exercises for users with diabetes technique taught by EDWARDS as above, in order to provide improved flexibility to perform an excises for users with diabetes [See EDWARDS; [0169]]. Regarding claim 10, this is a method that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Regarding claim 11, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Brown and EDWARDS further disclose a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that has stored a program for causing a computer to execute [e.g. Brown: FIG. 8-9 and 11; [0106]; EDWARDS: FIG. 17] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prakash et al (US 20160012194 A1). Zavesky et al (US 20230402158 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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. /ZHUBING REN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 8 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 9 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 19/002,212 Page 10 Art Unit: 2658
Prosecution Insights